S ENTENNIAL CELEBRATION 
 OF THE CONSECRATION 
 OF THE RT. REV. EDWARD 
 BASS, D. D., AS THE FIRST BISHOP 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
SDioccjefe of 2$a;gj0acJ)ustett£. 
 
 ONE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONSECRATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ) kf' 
 
 Rt. Rev. EDWARD BASS, D. D. 
 
 THE FIRST BISHOP OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 1797-MAY 7 — 1897. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 Printed by order of the Standing Committee of the Diocese. 
 1897. 
 
V 
 
1934 Howard Mem- i 3 £,' TilHNtn 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 T HE first Bishop of Massachusetts, the Right Rev. 
 Edward Bass, D. D., was consecrated on the seventh 
 | day of May, 1797. As the one hundredth anniversary of 
 ^ that event approached, the present Bishop of the Diocese 
 2 and the Standing Committee decided, upon consultation, 
 that it should be appropriately celebrated. A special com- 
 mittee was appointed to prepare for the celebration, consist- 
 ing of the Rev. John S. Lindsay, D. D., the Rev. A. St. John 
 Chambre, D. D., Messrs. Edward L. Davis and A. J. C. Sow- 
 don. The Right Rev. William Lawrence, D. D., Bishop of 
 the Diocese, was requested by this committee to deliver an 
 historical discourse suitable to the occasion, in some church 
 in Boston, on the seventh of May, 1897, to be preceded by 
 the celebration of the Holy Communion. Trinity Church 
 was courteously offered for the Service by the Wardens and 
 Vestry of the Parish, and was accepted. 
 
 It was also deemed proper that there should be a social 
 o gathering in connection with the commemoration of Bishop 
 ** Bass’s Consecration, at which speeches dealing with the 
 § history of the Church in other parts of our country should 
 
 P 
 
 CD 
 
 868025 
 
4 
 
 Introductory Note. 
 
 be made by prominent Churchmen from certain other Dio- 
 ceses. The Episcopalian Club of Massachusetts generously 
 proposed to entertain at luncheon about two hundred Clergy- 
 men and laymen, at the Hotel Brunswick, and other guests 
 were provided for in a hotel adjacent. A representative 
 from each of the five Dioceses of the Church in the United 
 States, whose Bishops were consecrated prior to the conse- 
 cration of Bishop Bass, was invited to speak at the luncheon 
 — the Dioceses being Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, 
 Virginia and Maryland. The expected speaker from New 
 York was not present. The Rev. Samuel Hart, D. D., Pro- 
 fessor in Trinity College, Connecticut, Mr. Geo. W. Pepper, 
 Professor in the University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Joseph 
 Bryan, of Richmond, Virginia, and Mr. Joseph Packard, of 
 Baltimore, Maryland, represented their respective Dioceses. 
 
 The historical discourse of the Bishop of Massachusetts, 
 delivered in Trinity Church, and the speeches of the repre- 
 sentatives of the different Dioceses, which were made at the 
 luncheon, are published in this pamphlet, that they may be 
 preserved in permanent form and read by many who were 
 not fortunate enough to hear them. 
 
HISTORICAL DISCOURSE 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rt. Rev. WILLIAM LAWRENCE, D. D., 
 
 Bisbop of tbe Diocese* 
 
HISTORICAL DISCOURSE. 
 
 O N May seventh, 1797, in Christ Church, Philadel- 
 phia, the Reverend Edward Bass, D. D., was 
 consecrated Bishop of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 
 To commemorate this event, to recall the life and 
 character of the First Bishop of Massachusetts, and to 
 thank God for His goodness to the Church in this 
 Diocese, we meet to-day. 
 
 In the Town Records of Braintree stands this item : 
 “On the 12 month, 3, 1657, John Bass and Ruth 
 Aulden were married by John Aulden of Duxbury.” 
 This “ Ruth Aulden ” was the great-grandmother of 
 Edward Bass. 
 
 In the Town Records of Roxbury is written : “ Dea- 
 con Samuel Bass, aged 94, departed this life upon the 
 30th day of Dec., 1694 ; who had been a deacon of 
 the Church of Braintree for the space of above 50 
 years, and the first deacon of that Church ; and was 
 the father and grandfather and great-grandfather of a 
 
8 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 hundred and sixty- two children before he died.” John 
 Bass, who married Ruth Alden, was the son of this 
 same Samuel Bass. From such sturdy stock came the 
 First Bishop of Massachusetts. 
 
 Edward Bass, son of Joseph and Elizabeth Bass, 
 was born in Dorchester, November 23, 1726, and four 
 days later, braving the November winds, was carried 
 to the First Church and there baptized. 
 
 The fourth child in a family of eleven children in 
 the Old Bay State received an education in self- 
 restraint, experience and piety. The studies of Ed- 
 ward Bass were also encouraged, for he entered 
 Harvard College at the age of thirteen. The absence 
 of his name from the disciplinary record suggests that 
 he was a quiet, faithful student. Twice only was he 
 fined for the mild offence of being absent “ from Col- 
 lege after the vacancy.” 
 
 Graduating in 1744, he remained at Cambridge, 
 and three years later received the Master’s Degree. 
 The subject of his Master’s thesis is suggestive of his 
 trend of thought. It runs thus : “ Will the blessed in 
 the future world, after the last judgment, make use of 
 articulate speech, and will that be Hebrew ? ” His de- 
 cision that the blessed will use articulate speech, and 
 that the language spoken will be Hebrew, gives force 
 to a favorite dogma of that day, — the small number 
 of the elect. 
 
 He seems to have had some hesitation as to his 
 life work, for he remained in or about Cambridge for 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 9 
 
 over six years after graduation. He taught school at 
 intervals, and then turned towards the Congregational 
 ministry. Having obtained a license to preach, he 
 supplied vacant pulpits in the neighboring towns. 
 When supplying at Malden, he received from the 
 Wardens of St. Paul’s Church, Newburyport^, a request 
 to become the Assistant Minister of that Parish. 
 
 Such a call gives us the impression that he must 
 have been considering a change from the Congrega- 
 tional Order to the Ministry of the Episcopal Church. 
 That a young graduate of Harvard, of Massachusetts 
 descent, a Congregational licentiate, should have 
 thought of entering the Ministry of the Episcopal 
 Church at all, suggests a movement in the intellectual 
 and religious condition of the Commonwealth which 
 we may well consider before we follow him into his 
 new office. 
 
 A generation or more before this date, Puritanism 
 in Massachusetts had reached its highest point in 
 organization and power. Though never more con- 
 scious of its strength, signs of weakness were already 
 apparent. The ecclesiastical leaders, narrower and 
 more autocratic than their predecessors, were losing 
 their hold on the people. The liberalizing tendency of 
 Harvard, leading to the foundation of Yale College, is 
 a water-mark of that period. The population was be- 
 coming more varied. Though the people were still 
 hostile to the Church of England as a system, they had 
 the blood and traditions of old England in them, and 
 
IO 
 
 Bishop Lawrences 
 
 were, perhaps unconsciously, becoming more open to 
 the influence of its thought and temper. 
 
 Under Governor Andros the services of the Church 
 of England had been inaugurated in Boston in spite 
 of strong protest. King’s Chapel had been built in 
 1689 5 an< 3 the Society for the Propagation of the Gos- 
 pel, organized in 1701, was sending Missionaries of 
 high character to New England. Still, the hard shell 
 of New England religion had hardly been scratched. 
 When, however, the Trustees of Yale College received 
 a letter from President Cutler and five eminent Con- 
 gregational Ministers of the neighborhood, stating that 
 they doubted the validity, and even were fully per- 
 suaded of the “ invalidity of Presbyterian ordination in 
 opposition to Episcopal,” there was an explosion. 
 “This event,” says Quincy, in his History of Harvard 
 College, “ shook Congregationalism throughout New 
 England like an earthquake, and filled its friends with 
 terror and apprehension.” 1 
 
 At that time came the publication in Boston of a 
 “ Discourse concerning Episcopacy,” and the bitter 
 controversy between John Checkley and the Congre- 
 gational Clergy. Then followed the trial and con- 
 demnation of Checkley for publishing and selling a 
 scandalous libel. Such incidents brought the Church 
 of England before the people, though not always in its 
 most attractive and spiritual form. 
 
 Quincy’s History of Harvard College, Vol. I, Chap, xvii, p. 364. 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 1 1 
 
 The sojourn of Dean Berkeley at Newport gave to 
 those who met him a fine illustration of a Clergyman of 
 the Church of England, who was a gentleman, a scholar, 
 and a man of deep spiritual life. His character, genius 
 and enthusiasm left their impression in America, and 
 his gifts to Harvard and Yale of books bearing upon 
 the polity and history of the English Church became, 
 to use Berkeley’s own phrase, “ a proper means to in- 
 form their judgment and dispose them to think better 
 of our Church.” 
 
 Popular religion had stiffened into a hard theology 
 and mechanical methods. This spiritual drought 
 offered the opportunity for Whitefield, whose eloquence 
 and emotional fervor swept through the country like 
 a prairie fire. He gathered the multitudes, roused 
 Harvard College, and found ten or twenty thousand 
 people at his feet on Boston Common. 
 
 The fanatical excesses which followed the “ great 
 awakening” turned many persons to the sober and 
 dignified service of the Episcopal Church. Dr. Cutler, 
 who had become Rector of Christ Church, Boston, re- 
 ported to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
 that many dissenters “ think the better of our Church 
 under Mr. Whitefield’s invectives against it, and many 
 of them take it as a refuge from those corrupt princi- 
 ples and those disorders he has spread among them.” 
 
 I would not have you infer from these statements 
 that the Church of England had any considerable place 
 in the thoughts or esteem of the people of New Eng- 
 
12 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 land. The old order continued strong, and was well 
 supported ; it was intrenched behind the history, tradi- 
 tions, laws, prejudices, and social customs of the 
 Colony ; and it was not disposed to yield a point to any 
 other Church, especially to that one which in the popu- 
 lar mind was, not without some reason, identified with 
 tyranny, persecution and the exile of their fathers from 
 old England. They were little conscious that they had 
 brought with them some of those same features ; they 
 did not catch the humor of Blaxton’s response to the 
 invitation to join the Puritan Church : “I have come 
 from England because I did not like the lord bishops ; 
 but I cannot join with you, because I would not be 
 under the lord brethren.” Blaxton sought a freer 
 atmosphere in Rhode Island, “ near to Master Williams, 
 but far from his opinions.” 
 
 The Church of England was represented at only a 
 few points, having but three or four Parishes of any 
 strength, and these were popularly associated with the 
 officers of the Crown, their friends and servants. 
 
 Some of the earlier Clergy sent from England had 
 brought disrepute upon the Order ; but later, under 
 the influence of the Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel, and by the entrance of New-England-born 
 men into her Ministry, her Clergymen were recognized 
 as earnest and of good ability. Moreover, the com- 
 parative indifference of the Mother Church did not add 
 dignity to the Church in the Colonies. By tradition 
 and habit, but by no sanction of law, the Bishop of 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 3 
 
 London was the overseer of the Churches in America. 
 The Episcopal Church in this country lacked its essen- 
 tial feature, the Bishop. There were, of course, no 
 confirmations, no consecrations of Churches, and no 
 episcopal oversight. A young man seeking Orders was 
 obliged to undertake the expense, hardship and risk 
 of a voyage to England ; and in those days, quite a 
 fraction of those who went fell a victim to small-pox 
 or to shipwreck. When, therefore, a young Harvard 
 graduate, a licentiate in the Congregational Church, 
 born and bred in the atmosphere of Puritanism, deter- 
 mined to take Orders in the Church of England, he 
 must have been moved to that decision by strong in- 
 fluences and reasons. He must also have had some 
 strength of character. 
 
 What brought young Bass to his decision it is not 
 easy to discover. His residence of nine years in Cam- 
 bridge suggests some hesitation as to his future. His 
 sober, dignified and practical character made him no 
 doubt susceptible to the temper of the Prayer Book. 
 He must have run across, in the College Library, the 
 books given to Harvard by Dean Berkeley. His 
 unemotional temperament may have reacted at the 
 preaching of Whitefield. And, then, the definite call 
 to St. Paul’s Church, Newburyport, may have settled 
 his determination. 
 
 The history of the Church at Newburyport illus- 
 trates the struggles of the Episcopal Church. A dis- 
 sension in the Congregational Church upon “ the 
 
H 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 Plains ” at Newbury, due to the building of a Meeting 
 House at “ Pipe Stave Hill,” offered the opportunity 
 for a few Church of England people, with some of the 
 malcontents, to establish their form of worship. A 
 Chapel called “ Queen Anne’s,” the second Episcopal 
 Church in Massachusetts, was built in 1711. The 
 members of this Church were compelled to contribute 
 to the support of “ the tolerated dissenting teacher,” 
 as they termed the Congregational Minister. This they 
 resisted. The Governor was appealed to, and after a 
 long struggle their taxes for the Minister were turned 
 towards the support of their own Missionary. 
 
 The increase of the shipping interest by the “water- 
 side,” three miles from the Chapel, developed a large 
 community at Newburyport, which in fact was becom- 
 ing the centre of activity. St. Paul’s Church had been 
 built there in 1738. The Rev. Mr. Plant, of the 
 Chapel, who was old and feeble, claimed his rights as 
 Rector over the new Church. The Wardens resisted 
 his claim, and wanted the Rev. Mr. Bass to be their 
 Minister. Mr. Plant won his point, and was formally 
 inducted, with the understanding that Mr. Bass should, 
 as his Assistant Minister, have charge of St. Paul’s. 
 At the same time, he expressed his good-will by relin- 
 quishing £ 20 of his salary to his assistant. 
 
 The young man had already been inspected by one 
 of the Wardens, who reported his satisfaction. “Well, 
 gentlemen, he pares an apple and lights a pipe more 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 15 
 
 like a gentleman than any of the other candidates you 
 have brought me.” 
 
 Before going to England for Ordination, he was 
 examined by some of the Clergy. The Wardens asked 
 him to read the Service and preach in St. Paul’s. In 
 spite of the protests of some of his examiners, he did 
 so, and they wrote to the Bishop of London that “ the 
 forward young man did proceed, and Mr. Plant, thro’ 
 age & infirmity, was weak enough to countenance the 
 irregularity, by the loan of a gown, etc.” 
 
 In April, 1752, Mr. Bass reported himself in Lon- 
 don to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. 
 He presented his credentials, including a letter from 
 the President and Professors of Harvard College, in 
 which they wrote : “ We Cheerfully declare, that He 
 hath behaved himself during his abode w th us up- 
 rightly & blamelessly as to his Life and Conversation.” 
 A letter from the Minister at Braintree described him 
 as “a man of Piety and Sense, a good Preacher, and 
 of an agreeable temper.” 
 
 Recommended for Holy Orders by the Society for 
 the Propagation of the Gospel to the Rt. Rev. Thomas 
 Sherlock, Lord Bishop of London, Mr. Bass was kindly 
 received and examined. He signed the Declaration 
 of Conformity, and was ordained Deacon by the Bishop 
 in the Chapel of Fulham Palace on May 17, 1752. 
 Ordination to the Priesthood followed on May 24, 
 1752 . 
 
i6 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 Licensed by the Bishop of London “ to perform the 
 ministerial office in the Province of New England in 
 America,” and appointed Missionary by the Society, 
 the young man was presented to the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, who gave him his “ Paternal Benediction 
 and Instructions.” 
 
 In the autumn of 1752 Mr. Bass entered upon his 
 duties as Assistant Minister in St. Paul’s Church. 
 
 We do not realize in these days the importance of 
 the Town of Newburyport in the years before the 
 Revolution. In population and in shipping it stood 
 with Boston. Its commerce reached the most distant 
 lands, and large fortunes were made by the ship- 
 owners. An atmosphere of opulence and dignity per- 
 vaded the place. There was no grander street in New 
 England than the High Road which went through the 
 Town from end to end, passing near the wharves where 
 lay the great ships, and sweeping out until you reached 
 the open “ Plains.” A stranger arriving on one of the 
 great ships which had been built in the Merrimac, 
 made his way by the warehouses, where the odor of 
 molasses, rum and Eastern spices suggested different 
 climes, and soon caught a vista of the broad, grass- 
 bound roadway. On either side stood in full dignity 
 the great, square colonial houses, with their large barns 
 and sunny, hospitable yards ; sometimes the gambrel 
 roof presented an attractive, home-like appearance, and 
 then as the country opened, the plain farm-houses told 
 of comfort, frugality and integrity. 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 1 7 
 
 With the ringing of the bells on a Sabbath morning 
 the whole community appeared. The farmers drove in 
 with their families. The mariners, sail-makers, tallow- 
 chandlers, coopers and rope-makers scraped the tar 
 and grease from their hands, but with a strong scent of 
 their trade, escorted wife and children, under the shade 
 of the elms. The gentlemen and merchants in small- 
 clothes, brilliant vests, and blue coats with silver but- 
 tons, assisted their families — dressed in brocaded silk, 
 imported by themselves — into their carriages, and 
 drove in solemn dignity to worship. 
 
 The Congregational Meeting Houses gathered in 
 the largest company, for that was the established order 
 in the community. St. Paul’s, however, had a congre- 
 gation of good size and of large variety, — the negro 
 servants and a few of the richest shippers. Men like 
 Tristram Dalton, Elbridge Gerry, Rufus King, Thomas, 
 Patrick and John Tracy, were the peers of any citizens 
 of the Colonies. They were Churchmen ; some of 
 them had been in other countries ; and they were men 
 of broad minds as well as strong character. In such a 
 Parish the Reverend Edward Bass, then only twenty- 
 six years old, began his ministry. There he remained, 
 with increasing influence and respect, for over fifty 
 years, until his death. 
 
 Except in the Parish Records, there is almost noth- 
 ing directly from Mr. Bass’s pen that we can draw 
 from, in order to bring before us his interests, habits 
 of life, and methods of work. Such information as we 
 
8 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 have must be gathered from other sources. And we 
 may well pause for a few minutes, to conjure up the 
 salient points of his ministry before the Revolution. 
 
 A few months after the arrival of his Assistant, the 
 Rev. Mr. Plant died, and Mr. Bass, now Rector of the 
 whole Parish, officiated once a month for several years 
 in the Queen Anne’s Chapel. The stipend of fifty 
 pounds from the Venerable Society, supplemented by 
 the contributions of the people, soon enabled their 
 Minister to take larger responsibilities, and in 1754 he 
 married Sarah Beck. 
 
 A vote of the Vestry that a committee “ agree with 
 some suitable person or persons to build a porch and 
 front gallery to said Church,” marks an early increase 
 in the congregation. 
 
 A great occasion to the Parish and to the whole 
 town, was the purchase and installation of an organ. 
 To have planned for such a radical movement suggests 
 the wealth of the Parish, and their appreciation of a 
 richer service than was the custom of those days. The 
 Rector himself subscribed £ 20 from his small income. 
 This organ had been left by Thomas Brattle to Brattle 
 Square Church, Boston, under the conditions of his. 
 will, which read : “ If they shall accept thereof and 
 within a year after my decease procure a sober person 
 that can play skillfully thereon with a loud noise ; 
 otherwise to the Church of England in this towne on 
 y e same terms and conditions.” The organ was re- 
 fused by the Brattle Square Church, as “ they did not 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 19 
 
 think it proper to use the same in the publick worship 
 of God.” Later it was accepted by King’s Chapel, 
 and, having ravished the ears of the Governors and 
 citizens of Boston for over forty years, was transported 
 to Newburyport. What interest this wonderful instru- 
 ment aroused there, what numbers of people who had 
 never visited Boston it gathered, we can imagine. No 
 doubt Mr. Bass considered with a tempered satisfaction 
 the large congregations attracted, his honesty obliging 
 him to confess, by other sounds than that of his 
 own voice. 
 
 His regular reports to the Venerable Society tell by 
 their monotony, as well as by their carefulness, the 
 work of a faithful Pastor. The contents of his reports 
 are much like this : — 
 
 Newbury , N. England , 24 March , 1760. 
 
 Dear Doctor, 
 
 Since my last I have baptized only three Infants & re- 
 ceived one new Communicant, a person of very good char- 
 acter. I have the pleasure of informing the Society that 
 there is a good prospect of the Church’s increasing here, 
 several of the Dissenters of repute and substance having of 
 late very constantly attended our publick worship. I have 
 drawn for my last half year’s salary, which please to order 
 paid, and you’ll oblige 
 
 Yr most obedt humble Servt 
 
 Edward Bass. 
 
 To the Rev’d Dr Bearcroft, 
 
 At the Charter-house, London. 
 
20 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 We catch sight of his missionary spirit, in his ap- 
 peals for aid and books in behalf of the struggling 
 Mission at Amesbury. Then we follow him up into 
 the back country at Hopkinton, the summer resort of 
 a few wealthy citizens of Boston, where dwelt the Rev. 
 Dr. Price, Commissary of the Bishop of London. 
 
 H is relations with the other Ministers of the town 
 and their congregations were always pleasant. His 
 patience was ruffled at times, as for instance when 
 the Congregationalists broke into old Queen Anne’s 
 Chapel, now almost disused, and, in spite of his pro- 
 tests, held service there until driven forth by the 
 authorities. 
 
 “ Methodism prevails much among us,” he reports 
 to the Society, “ more, I believe, than in any other 
 town in the country. That enthusiastick spirit is lately 
 revived to an uncommon degree, and appears in a 
 manner almost incredible ; religious meetings are fre- 
 quent, mostly in the night, at which y e people, not 
 only grown persons of both sexes, but even little chil- 
 dren, cry out, utter very strange (some that have been 
 present say blasphemous) expressions, and fall into 
 raptures and trances. None of my church are at all 
 infected with these things.” When, however, the great 
 preacher, Whitefield, came back to Newburyport to die, 
 Mr. Bass was selected as one of the six pall-bearers, 
 and in that office he conducted the remains to their 
 last resting place under the pulpit of the First Presby- 
 terian Meeting House. 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 21 
 
 In spite, however, of the kindly personal relations 
 between many Presbyterians and Churchmen, there was 
 a lurking suspicion of the Church of England, which 
 occasionally broke forth into most violent hostility. 
 
 In 1763 a Harvard classmate of Mr. Bass, Dr. 
 Jonathan Mayhew, Pastor of the West Church in Bos- 
 ton, published a virulent pamphlet against the Church 
 and her intrusion into the Colonies, awakening in the 
 people the latent hatred of the Lord Bishops and the 
 Hierarchy. He was answered by the Rev. East Ap- 
 thorp, Rector of Christ Church, Cambridge. Letters 
 and pamphlets flew thick and fast. Mr. Bass wrote 
 again and again to England for books with which to 
 fortify himself against the Dissenters. The contro- 
 versy reached such importance as to call forth a strong 
 pamphlet from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. 
 Seeker. Naturally, such skirmishes led to the stronger 
 marshalling of the forces, so that we are not surprised 
 to find the Clergy of the Episcopal Churches reaching 
 out to each other and drawing into closer relations. 
 
 In June, 1766, Mr. Bass attended the first annual 
 Convention of the Clergy of Massachusetts at King’s 
 Chapel, Boston. “ We met, 14 in number,” wrote one 
 of them, “and made something of an appearance for 
 this country, when we walked together in our Gowns 
 and Cassocks .... and we were honored by the Gov- 
 ernor’s Company at Dinner.” 
 
 Their discussions turned upon the need of a Bishop. 
 The next year there went from the Convention to the 
 
22 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 Venerable Society a strong letter, representing the 
 conditions of the Churches and their hardships. “ It 
 is, however,” they wrote, “ a great discouragement to 
 those who would offer themselves to the service of 
 these American Churches that they are still obliged to 
 submit to the danger and expense of a voyage 1000 
 leagues long, to qualify themselves for that service.” 
 “ Since the first settlement of Christianity so large a 
 Continent as this was never known without a Resident 
 Bishop .... We are too remote and inconsiderable to 
 approach the throne, yet could his Majesty hear the 
 voice of so distant a people, the request for American 
 Bishops would appear to be the crye of many thou- 
 sands of His most faithful subjects.” 
 
 The Church of England, however, was indifferent or 
 deaf to the appeal. The Ministry, already conscious of 
 threatening disturbances and knowing the hostility of 
 the American people to Bishops, no doubt discouraged 
 any movement which might increase their difficulties. 
 To the American mind a resident Bishop involved 
 taxes for his support, a spiritual court, a palace, and 
 even an established Church. Such a prejudice was 
 easily played upon ; and politicians in America could 
 use it in order to incite the people against the Govern- 
 ment. Indeed, in 1772, Samuel Adams received word 
 from Elbridge Gerry, “ It may not be amiss to hit at 
 the Church innovations, and the establishment of those 
 tyrants in religion — Bishops.” Samuel Adams took 
 the hint. 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 23 
 
 The subject so important to the Churchmen was, 
 however, but an incident in the great questions now 
 before the people. The Colonies were moving rapidly 
 into the War of the Revolution. To a commercial 
 town like Newburyport, war with England meant disas- 
 ter to business. The issue, however, was deeper than 
 that, and the richest joined with the body of the people 
 in upholding the cause of the Colonies. 
 
 News of Concord and Lexington, and then of Bun- 
 ker Hill, reached the town. The wharves were busy 
 with strange work. Privateers were fitted out, guns 
 hauled down to the ships, and sailors were volunteer- 
 ing for the service. In September, Benedict Arnold, 
 at the head of ten or twelve hundred men, marched 
 down the broad street to the docks, where they em- 
 barked on ten transports for the capture of Quebec. 
 
 Strange emotions must have swept over Edward 
 Bass, and his conversations with his wife and Wardens 
 must have been serious, for he stood in a unique posi- 
 tion in the community. He, like the other citizens, 
 was a subject of the King. Under injustice, he, like 
 them, might claim the right of an Englishman to pro- 
 test, and even resist. But another bond held Mr. 
 Bass. He was a Clergyman of the Church of England ; 
 he had received his Orders from the Church, and in 
 return had given his solemn promise of conformity ; he 
 too, was commissioned and partially supported by the 
 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and he was 
 under obligations to them. 
 
24 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 It would have been comparatively easy for him to 
 have embarked with the other Clergy for England, or 
 Nova Scotia, and wait the turn of affairs. They were 
 most of them natives of England, and had been in this 
 country but a few years, or even months. He, how- 
 ever, was a Massachusetts man. He had his duty to 
 his own countrymen. Moreover, he was the Pastor of 
 a people. He had no right to leave his flock without 
 a shepherd. His common sense, courage and prudence 
 came to his aid. He would stand by his pastoral work, 
 take sides with neither political party, conduct the ser- 
 vices of the Church, and let the events move on. To 
 this line of action he was consistent. Such a middle 
 course always has its dangers, and Mr. Bass did not 
 escape them. By the patriots he was called a Tory, 
 and when returning home with his wife one evening he 
 was insulted and mobbed by a crowd of men and boys. 
 His treatment from the other side was, however, far 
 more severe. 
 
 Ten days after Independence was declared the War- 
 dens of St. Paul’s wrote to Mr. Bass: “The repre- 
 sentatives of the United Colonies in America having in 
 Congress declared said Colonies free and independent 
 States, and disavowed all allegiance to the King of 
 Great Britain, and the Service of the Churches to which 
 we belong prescribing certain prayers, and so forth, to 
 be used for said King and his government, we find 
 ourselves under the necessity of requesting you to 
 omit, in your use of the Service, all prayers, collects, 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 25 
 
 or suffrages which relate to the King, royal family, or 
 government of Great Britain, both as we would avoid 
 very great inconsistency, and as we value the welfare 
 of the Church, being assured that without such 
 omission the existence thereof would immediately 
 cease.” 
 
 Believing that this action was necessary to the ex- 
 istence of the Church, Mr. Bass complied with the 
 request. He also opened the Church on days of Pub- 
 lic Fasts and Thanksgiving, and, on one occasion, 
 preached a charity sermon and took up a contribution 
 for the poor of the town, including some of the wives 
 and children of Continental soldiers. With these ex- 
 ceptions, he continued in the work and service of the 
 Church as before the war, observing, no doubt, great 
 discretion in his conversation, that he might not offend 
 his fellow-citizens. 
 
 Refugees from Massachusetts had, however, reached 
 London, and with them came to the Board of Man- 
 agers of the Venerable Society, rumors and even cer- 
 tified informations of the disloyalty of the Rev. Mr. 
 Bass to the Royal government. Accusations were 
 made that he had read the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence in Church ; that as Chaplain of a British regi- 
 ment, he had tried to seduce the soldiers to the Rebel 
 cause ; that he was part owner in a privateer ; that he 
 took up a collection for Continental soldiers, and that 
 he kept the Fasts and Feasts appointed by Congress. 
 Ignorant that these charges had been made, Mr, Bass 
 
26 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 was surprised when he learned that his stipend had 
 been cut off, and that he was no longer a recognized 
 Missionary of the Society. 
 
 The fact that he was dismissed without knowledge 
 of the charges, or opportunity to answer them, roused 
 his indignation, and the loss of his stipend came as a 
 real hardship in the trying months of the Revolution. 
 A subscription list tells us that some members of his 
 Parish generously came to his aid. The knowledge, 
 however, that Clergymen who had fled from their posts, 
 now living in safety in London and Nova Scotia, were 
 poisoning the minds of the members of the Society, 
 harassed him. Letters now poured in to the officers 
 of the Venerable Society from the friends of Mr. Bass, 
 his Wardens, the Rev. Mr. Parker of Trinity Church, 
 Boston, Dr. Walter of Trinity Church, New York, and 
 public men, attesting the discreet and loyal character 
 of Mr. Bass. By the courtesy of the Society, we have 
 the full records and correspondence, which will be pub- 
 lished in the “ Life of Bishop Bass,” by the Rev. Dan- 
 iel Dulany Addison, to whom I have been under great 
 obligations in the preparation of this Address. 
 
 It is interesting to follow the action on both sides ; 
 to see how, in the early heat of the war, the Society 
 not unnaturally acted on ill-founded report and hear- 
 say ; and how, when the request came before them 
 again and again to rescind their action, they evidently 
 questioned whether they had not acted hastily. To 
 the end, however, they were unwilling to recall their 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 2 7 
 
 vote. We can imagine the little company in Furnival’s 
 Inn Court listening to the Secretary, as he read the 
 indignant letters of Mr. Bass, asking for definite 
 charges. After quoting some rumors that had reached 
 him, he breaks forth : “ This is as false as God is true. 
 I find that I have secret enemies (God knows how 
 they came to be so) who are set upon ruining my char- 
 acter and reputation with those upon whose good 
 opinion I set the highest value. I am sorry to trouble 
 you with any more of my letters, but cannot help 
 observing to you the singularity of my Fate in being a 
 sufferer on both sides, here for my Loyalty, with you 
 for the Contrary, without being a Trimmer. When 
 the late rebellion commenced, I preserved as firm & 
 unshaken loyalty to his Majesty, & attachment to the 
 British Government, as was consistent with my remain- 
 ing in the country, whereof I have given to the Society 
 all the proof that I thought to be requisite, having 
 exhibited ample testimonials in my favour, not only 
 from my Wardens, but also from some of the most 
 respectable characters & noted Loyalists in the Capital 
 of Newhampshire about twenty miles distant from me, 
 who, without any solicitation of mine, made me a vol- 
 untary tender of their Service, not to mention the 
 testimony of Sundry refugee Loyalists now in London, 
 who resided in this town & perfectly knew my charac- 
 ter & conduct. Notwithstanding which the Society 
 has thought proper to distinguish me by uncommon 
 marks of neglect & displeasure.” “ That they should 
 
28 
 
 Bishop Lawrences 
 
 dis-card a Missionary upon an Allegation of misde- 
 meanor, a Missionary of long standing, depending upon 
 their salary, & daily incurring expenses upon a full 
 expectation of continuing to receive it, without giving 
 him the least Notice, or any chance of vindicating him- 
 self, is, to say the least of it, an unexampled method 
 of proceeding, & such as must imply some very atro- 
 cious crime fully proved. I must beg it of the Society 
 either to let me know what proof of my innocence will 
 be sufficient, or that no proof whatever will avail me ; 
 or, if they refuse me this, at least to do me the 
 common act of justice to let me know who are my 
 Accusers, & what the nature of my crime or crimes, 
 for whatever becomes of my Living, I am determined 
 to clear up my character in point of Loyalty to my 
 late Sovereign.” 
 
 Unfortunately the Society never informed him of 
 the charges ; as their vote runs, they saw “ no reason 
 to re-scind their first resolution,” so that Mr. Bass had 
 to content himself with the publication in London of a 
 pamphlet defending his loyalty and character. 
 
 Amidst the distractions and privations of war, Mr. 
 Bass continued his pastoral work. As Mr. Parker, of 
 Trinity Church, Boston, was the only other Episcopal 
 Clergyman in Massachusetts, they each had many 
 added duties in connection with other Parishes. Mr. 
 Bass, for instance, wrote to the Society, “ having 
 return’d from a journey of about a hundred miles into 
 the Province of New Hampshire, . . . [where] I bap- 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 29 
 
 tized about sixty children and Adult Persons, near half 
 the number at Holderness.” 
 
 The end of the War brought new and great prob- 
 lems to the Episcopal Church, as well as to the 
 country. For the Church, being in theory and tradi- 
 tion episcopal, national, and of strong organization, it 
 was in fact, by the necessity of the times, almost con- 
 gregational, scattered throughout the thirteen States, 
 disorganized. 
 
 It is a popular impression that the Episcopal 
 Church was only a Church of the Tories, and that, on 
 that account, there was nothing left of it at the close 
 of the War. While it is true that a large proportion 
 of the Clergy, being English by birth and education, 
 were Tory, and that it was the Church of his Majesty’s 
 officials, it is no less true that a good fraction of the 
 Clergy were Americans ; and that, though generally 
 cautious in their action during the War, they were, as 
 soon as the Treaty of Peace was declared, quick to 
 take up their duties as citizens of the States, and to 
 lead the Church into sympathy with the new conditions. 
 
 Many laymen and their families, in company with a 
 number from Congregational and other Churches, fled 
 the country. This, however, is also true, — that as a 
 body, throughout the land, especially at the South, the 
 laymen were devoted to the American cause. When 
 we remember that of the signers of the Declaration of 
 Independence, a large fraction were attached to the 
 Episcopal Church, as were Washington, Alexander 
 
30 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, Marshall, Madison, Pat- 
 rick Henry, and others, and that the first Chaplain of 
 the Continental Congress, the Rev. Dr. White, was the 
 first Bishop through the English succession, we recog- 
 nize a reason why the Church was so quick to organize 
 on lines that were distinctly American. 
 
 And in Massachusetts, too, as the action of the 
 Wardens of St. Paul’s, Newburyport, showed, the offi- 
 cers and people of the Churches sympathized with the 
 patriots. In the Church at Newburyport, for instance, 
 were Captains Thomas and Nicholas Tracy, owners and 
 commanders of some of the most successful privateers ; 
 John Tracy, aide-de-camp to General Glover ; Tristram 
 Dalton, Senator to Congress from Massachusetts ; 
 Rufus King, Senator from New York, and twice Min- 
 ister Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James ; and 
 other strong patriots. 
 
 The Episcopal Churches without a Bishop, with no 
 organic or national unity, and with a Prayer Book 
 which not only required prayers for the King and the 
 success of his armies, but was in some other respects 
 not acceptable to the American Churchmen, had before 
 them three problems — the obtaining of Bishops, the 
 national organization of the Churches, and the adop- 
 tion of an amended Prayer Book. 
 
 We have time to consider these questions only so 
 far as they touch and reveal the character and position 
 of Mr. Bass. 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 3i 
 
 After the War the return of two Clergymen to 
 Massachusetts and one to Rhode Island gave some 
 support to the Reverend Mr. Bass and the Reverend 
 Mr. Parker. But these two were the accepted leaders. 
 Mr. Parker was the younger, and had studied under 
 Mr. Bass. As Rector of Trinity Church, Boston, he 
 was in easier communication with distant cities, and 
 became the active representative of Massachusetts in 
 distant Conventions. Mr. Bass was, however, recog- 
 nized by his age, judgment, ripe experience, and con- 
 ciliatory temper, as the leading counsellor in the 
 Massachusetts Church, presiding at Conventions and 
 heading the list of committees. There was remarkable 
 unanimity in the sentiment of Massachusetts on these 
 great questions, and we may be sure that Mr. Bass 
 sympathized with and had great influence in the decis- 
 ions of the Massachusetts Conventions. 
 
 I emphasize this because the impression has been 
 given by historians of our Church that Connecticut 
 represented the Churchmanship of all . New England, 
 and that Massachusetts simply followed Connecticut’s 
 lead ; whereas, it is clear that from the first there was a 
 temper and character to Massachusetts which was its 
 own, clear, strong, and persistent. 
 
 In the matter of obtaining a Bishop, there was, as 
 we well know, a marked difference of opinion between 
 Connecticut and Philadelphia. Connecticut felt that 
 before a single move was made towards national 
 organization, the Episcopal Church should have a head, 
 
32 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 a Bishop. They, therefore, set about very quietly to 
 elect as Bishop the Reverend Samuel Seabury, who 
 immediately sailed for England, and, being refused 
 Consecration through the English Succession, was con- 
 secrated in Scotland. Meanwhile the Churches in the 
 South, as represented in Philadelphia, influenced no 
 doubt by their close association with the statesmen of 
 the country, had been moving towards confederation. 
 The question of a Bishop was held in abeyance. In 
 view of the practical impossibility, as it was then 
 thought, of obtaining a Bishop through the English 
 Succession, Dr. White had even suggested the creation 
 of Bishops until the Succession could be had ; a sugges- 
 tion which he withdrew as soon as there was a reason- 
 able chance of the English Succession. 
 
 In 1784 Mr. Bass wrote to Mr. Parker a letter, 
 which states his position so clearly, that I shall quote 
 at length : — 
 
 Newburyport , yune 21, 1784. 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 I have received y rs of the 15th inst., enclosing the min- 
 utes of the Philadelphia Convention, and their design appears 
 to me to be very good, not to say very important, viz., the 
 continuance and preservation of uniformity among the Epis- 
 copal Churches, at least from their State to the Northern 
 extremity of the United States. I fully agree with them 
 that the authority to make canons or laws should be placed 
 in a representative body of Clergy and laity conjointly, and 
 hope that in due time a suitable place for their Meeting will 
 be appointed. That the service and discipline of our Church 
 are capable of improvement will, I apprehend, be denied by 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 33 
 
 few of her intelligent members ; and such improvement or 
 amendment may without doubt be more easily effected now 
 than heretofore when we were connected with Great Britain. 
 But still reformation of almost any kind is a nice and delicate 
 affair, and not to be touch’d or attempted by rough hands. 
 I also look upon it to be highly expedient that proper collects 
 be made for the Government we live under. You propose a 
 meeting of the Episcopal Clergy of this State , — Jubes reno- 
 vare dolor em ! Alas ! to what are we reduced ! I know 
 of but four, two in Boston, one in Salem, and y r humble 
 servt- If then we should meet, Salem I think would be the 
 proper place, and why should not a respectable Layman of 
 each Church meet with us ? After all, I cannot help think- 
 ing it would be proper to wait for the arrival of our Bishop 
 before we proceed to any ecclesiastical consultations of im- 
 portance, that we may have his concuring voice in such 
 matters. According to the account I have had from you we 
 might have expected the arrival of such a person before this 
 time. Pray, what is become of him ? (Mr. Seabury, I think 
 you told me, was the man who went to England last year for 
 consecration.) What hath been his success ? Is anything 
 like to be done towards the regular continuance of our Suc- 
 cession, for I hope Messers White and Brethren have it not 
 in contemplation to constitute their three Orders de novo . ... 
 
 Y r - Affectionate Broth r - and humble Serv’b 
 
 Edward Bass. 
 
 Here you notice that Mr. Bass sympathized with 
 Connecticut in a desire for a Bishop as the first step. 
 In this he expressed the feeling of Massachusetts, for 
 in September, 1784, the Clergy of Massachusetts and 
 Rhode Island held their first annual Meeting, seven 
 being present, and a set of resolutions was passed, 
 
34 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 which, with a circular letter, was sent to leading Cler- 
 gymen throughout the country. In their letter they 
 say : “ But it is our unanimous opinion that it is begin- 
 ning at the wrong end to attempt to organize our 
 
 Church before we have obtained a head It is 
 
 needless to represent to you the absolute Necessity of 
 adopting and uniting in some speedy measures to pro- 
 cure some reputable Person who is regularly invested 
 with the Powers of Ordination, etc., to reside among 
 us, without which scarce the Shadow of an Episcopal 
 Church will soon remain in these States .... As to 
 the mode of obtaining what we stand in such need of, 
 we wish above all things to procure it in the most 
 regular manner, & particularly from our mother Church 
 in England.” 
 
 Thus far we have seen Massachusetts in agreement 
 with Connecticut, and not in sympathy with the feeling 
 in Philadelphia on this point. 
 
 When, however, we turn to the question of organ- 
 ization, and especially to the mode of representation, 
 we find Massachusetts turning away from Connecticut, 
 expressing in strong terms her sympathy with that 
 great and statesmanlike step in the Catholic Church, 
 taken under the leadership of that great man, the Rev. 
 William White ; namely, the representation of the Laity 
 in Ecclesiastical Councils. Said Seabury of Connec- 
 ticut : “ I cannot give up what I deem essential to 
 Episcopal Government, by admitting laymen into any 
 share of it, farther than the external or temporal state 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 35 
 
 of things may require. To subject a Bishop to the 
 censure of a Consistory of Presbyters and Laymen, 
 even with a Bishop at their head, I cannot consent. 
 From that thraldom the Church in Connecticut must, 
 if it please God, be preserved.” 1 Wrote Bass, of Mas- 
 sachusetts, as I have already quoted : “ The authority 
 to make canons or laws should be placed in a repre- 
 sentative body of Clergy and Laity conjointly.” And 
 one of the resolutions of the Massachusetts Clergy 
 was : “ That the power of making Canons and Laws be 
 invested solely in a representative body of the Clergy 
 and Laity conjointly ” 
 
 The contrast might be further emphasized. At the 
 Convention of Connecticut Clergy in Middletown, to 
 welcome Bishop Seabury, Dr. Parker was in attend- 
 ance, by invitation, as well as at the written request of 
 Messrs. Bass and Fisher, and at his request a few 
 changes in the Prayer Book were made. As soon, 
 however, as they were made public, Bishop Seabury 
 wrote to Dr. Parker : “ It was found that the Church 
 people in Connecticut were much alarmed at the 
 thought of any considerable alterations being made in 
 the Prayer Book ; and, upon the whole, it was judged 
 best that no alterations should be attempted at 
 present.” 
 
 The Massachusetts Convention, however, which 
 soon followed in September, 1785, was composed not 
 
 1 Beardsley’s History of the Church in Connecticut, Vol. I, p. 401. 
 
36 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 only of Clergy, as in Connecticut, but of Laity as 
 well, — in fact, there were ten laymen and four Clergy- 
 men — and radical alterations in the Prayer Book were 
 then passed, and, so far as we know, met the approval 
 of the Churchmen of this Diocese. 
 
 As to the changes in the Prayer Book, we have Mr. 
 Bass’s opinion in his own words. Besides favoring the 
 changes caused by political independence, he thought 
 they “ might part with the Athanasian Creed, one or 
 two Lord’s Prayers, and leave the use of sponsors to 
 the option of those who have children to christen.” 
 
 He added : “ We ought to have a code of Church 
 Laws or Canons, plain and simple. Some power 
 should be given to the Bishop or Bishops, but our 
 Dernier resort must be in a general Council, which 
 should be supream and have the power of censuring or 
 depriving Bishops, as there may be occasion.” 
 
 At the Massachusetts Convention of 1785, of which 
 Mr. Bass was the President, alterations in the Prayer 
 Book which had been voted by the Connecticut Con- 
 vention were considered, and much more radical 
 changes were passed. The Athanasian Creed was 
 omitted ; any congregation was given the right to use 
 or to omit as it saw fit, the Nicene Creed ; parents were 
 permitted to become sponsors of their children ; the 
 phrase, “ All men are conceived and born in sin,” was 
 omitted, as were also parts of the Litany ; the sign of 
 the Cross in Baptism was made discretionary ; the 
 Absolution in the Office of the Visitation of the Sick 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 37 
 
 was expunged, the Absolution in the Communion 
 Office being used in its stead, if necessary ; it was 
 declared immaterial whether the Communion Service 
 was read “ in the Reading Desk or in the Altar/’ and 
 other less important changes were made. 
 
 Although these changes were not to go into effect 
 until it was learned how far the other States would 
 “ conform to said alterations,” these resolutions of the 
 Massachusetts Convention suggest the trend of 
 thought here, and show that the Massachusetts 
 Churchmen had convictions of their own. 
 
 Dr. Seabury was consecrated in Scotland in 1 784 ; 
 Doctors White and Provoost in London in 1 787. The 
 General Convention which united the Churches of the 
 United States was held in Philadelphia, July 28th, 1789. 
 These were critical years for the Church. The doubt 
 expressed by some New York and Southern Clergy- 
 men as to the validity or recognition of Bishop Sea- 
 bury’s Orders ; the suspicion in Connecticut of the 
 methods of the New York and Philadelphia men ; the 
 lack of sympathy on the part of Bishop Seabury with 
 lay representation and some other American princi- 
 ples, and the slow communication between different 
 parts of the country, conspired to make the consolida- 
 tion of the Churches a most difficult and hazardous 
 task. In all the negotiations the wisdom, charity and 
 statesmanship of Bishop White are conspicuous. 
 
 Massachusetts again adopted her own line of policy ; 
 and, considering the small number of her Clergy and 
 
38 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 her distance from the scene of action, played an im- 
 portant part. Messrs. Bass and Parker had no sym- 
 pathy with the neglect of Bishop Seabury by the New 
 York and Southern men and their Conventions. Mr. 
 Bass called such behavior “ a disrespect to and con- 
 tempt of the Episcopal Order.” He waxes warm in 
 his indignation. “ Wiseacres,” he writes, “ what a 
 ridiculous figure must they make in the eyes of every 
 Sectary or anti-Episcopalian ! In the name of wonder, 
 what objection can be raised against the validity of Dr. 
 Seabury’s ordinations, that may not as well be made 
 against those of the English Bishops ? ” 1 At the same 
 time, when Bishop Seabury refused to preach before 
 the Boston Episcopal Charitable Society, because of 
 certain changes which Massachusetts had made in the 
 Prayer Book, the men of this Diocese, while court- 
 eously expressing their regret, held firm to their 
 position. 
 
 Connecticut would like to have had Massachusetts 
 send a man to Scotland for Consecration, and thus 
 commit New England to the Scottish Orders. Bishop 
 White suggested that Massachusetts should send a man 
 to England for Consecration, and thus complete the 
 three Bishops in English Orders in this country, and 
 do away with the necessity of Bishop Seabury in the 
 Consecration of a fourth Bishop. The union of the 
 Churches in the United States, and not the exclusion 
 
 i Hist. Notes and Documents, p. 325. 
 
Historical Discourse . 
 
 39 
 
 of either Succession, was the aim of Massachusetts ; 
 and she, with New Hampshire, showed skill and charity 
 in its accomplishment. 
 
 The General Convention of 1789, in which the 
 question of unity would come up, was drawing near. 
 On June 4, 1789, the Clergy of Massachusetts, five in 
 number, with one from New Hampshire, met, without 
 the laity, very quietly in Salem, and elected the Rev- 
 erend Edward Bass as Bishop, in order, as their act 
 read, “to encourage and promote, as far as in us lies, 
 a union of the whole Episcopal Church in these States, 
 and to perfect and compact this mystical body of 
 Christ.” They addressed “ the right reverend the 
 Bishops in the States of Connecticut, New York and 
 Pennsylvania, praying their assistance in consecrating ” 
 Mr. Bass. “This request,” they add, “we are induced 
 to make, from a long acquaintance with him, and of a 
 perfect knowledge of his being possessed of that love 
 of God and benevolence to men, that piety, learning, 
 and good morals, that prudence and discretion, requi- 
 site to so exalted a station, as well as that personal 
 respect and attachment of the Communion at large in 
 these States, which will make him a valuable acquisi- 
 tion to the Order, and, we trust, a rich blessing to the 
 Church.” 
 
 The Rev. Samuel Parker was authorized and em- 
 powered to transmit copies of the Act of this Conven- 
 tion to the three Bishops, to appear at the General 
 Convention, and “ to treat upon any measures that 
 
40 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 may tend to promote a union of the Episcopal Church 
 throughout the United States of America.” 1 That the 
 laity of Massachusetts should not have been invited to 
 this Convention, and should have been kept in igno- 
 rance of it, is remarkable. It is not clear why the 
 Clergy took this high-handed method of electing a 
 Bishop. It may have been due to the fact that they 
 felt by quiet and united action they could best accom- 
 plish their purposes ; possibly, they knew that Bishop 
 Seabury would not recognize the election of a Bishop 
 by laymen ; perhaps some of the Clergy themselves 
 who endorsed lay representation, drew the line at the 
 election of Bishops. 
 
 The laity of Massachusetts, or rather the laity of 
 Mr. Bass’s Parish, were not to be silenced in that way. 
 With all their regard and affection for their Rector, 
 they felt that a principle was at stake. A meeting of 
 the Wardens and Vestry of St. Paul’s, Newburyport, 
 was called “ to consider the Propriety of procuring one 
 or more Lay Deputies ” to represent the Churches of 
 Massachusetts and New Hampshire at the General 
 Convention. 
 
 An effort was made to gather a laymen’s Conven- 
 tion of the Churches of these two States, but this 
 movement received scant sympathy from the laymen of 
 the other Churches, and therefore failed. Nothing 
 daunted, the laymen of Newburyport met and elected 
 
 i Journal of General Convention, 1789. 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 4i 
 
 two Lay Deputies to represent the laymen of the 
 Churches of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In 
 notifying the two men, Tristram Dalton and Elbridge 
 Gerry, they wrote : — 
 
 “That the Clergy alone of our Church have a right to 
 elect a Bishop, Whose authority shall extend over the Laity, 
 is a Principle we can by no means accede to ; and from the 
 very scrupulous secrecy observed by our Ministers upon this 
 occasion, we are led to believe that it is a Principle they do 
 not feel themselves intirely founded in We find our- 
 
 selves, therefore, bound solemnly to protest against the late 
 election at Salem being drawn into Precedent on any future 
 occasion ; and at the same time we declare that nothing but 
 our personal knowledge of and most intire esteem and 
 veneration for the Rev’d Gentleman, who was the object of 
 that election, prevents our entering the like Protest against 
 its validity.” 
 
 There is no evidence that these two delegates were 
 recognized by the General Convention, though we 
 learn from Bishop White that they were there. 
 
 At the Philadelphia Convention “ the Act of the 
 Clergy of Massachusetts and New Hampshire,” with 
 the request for the Consecration of Mr. Bass by the 
 three Bishops, was presented. Resolutions then 
 passed, affirmed, “ That a complete Order of Bishops, 
 derived as well under the English as the Scots line of 
 episcopacy, existed in the United States ; ” “ that 
 Bishops White and Provoost are requested to unite 
 with Bishop Seabury in consecrating Rev. Edward 
 
42 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 Bass, as requested by ‘ the Act of the Clergy of Massa- 
 chusetts and New Hampshire.’ ” 
 
 As Bishop White, who heartily approved of this 
 action, felt in honor bound to consult the English 
 Archbishops before taking part in the Consecration, 
 the Convention adjourned until September. At that 
 meeting Bishop Seabury took his place, and the union 
 of the Churches was accomplished. The University of 
 Pennsylvania conferred the degree of Doctor of 
 Divinity upon the Rev. Edward Bass. 
 
 The Consecration of Dr. Bass, whose election had 
 led up to this happy union, did not take place. Whether 
 the delay had cooled the ardor of Massachusetts Church- 
 men for a Bishop ; whether Dr. Bass’s sense of humility 
 and unfitness for the office, or his lack of funds for the 
 journey, checked him, or whether the fact of his choice 
 by the Clergy only had created opposition among the 
 laity, we know not. Probably all these elements had 
 an influence. It is suggestive that when, seven years 
 later, the question of his Consecration arose, another 
 election, in which the laity took part, was had. 
 
 May 24, 1796, at the Convention of the Diocese in 
 Concert Hall, Boston, Dr. Bass was elected Bishop. 
 Of the ten Clergy present, including the President, 
 Dr. Bass, seven voted for him, as did all six laymen. 
 At first he declined the election ; but having considered 
 the critical situation, due to altercations and differences 
 of opinion in the Convention, he wrote : “ I think my- 
 self bound in duty to acquiesce, and to make a begin- 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 43 
 
 ning in this business, which it is probable, according to 
 the course of nature, I shall shortly quit, and leave the 
 election of a Successor more easy.” 
 
 At a special meeting of the Diocesan Convention, 
 held in September, 1 796, his letter of acceptance was 
 read. He asked for credentials and “ the unum neces- 
 sarium for travelling.” A committee was appointed 
 to procure the sum of $200 by subscription, to defray 
 the expenses of his journey. Delays in correspond- 
 ence, and in the preparation of the official papers, as 
 well as the difficulty in bringing three Bishops together, 
 postponed the Consecration until May 7, 1797. On 
 that day, in the historic Christ Church, Philadelphia, 
 the Rev. Dr. Bass was consecrated by Bishops White, 
 Provoost, and Claggett. 
 
 May 30th, 1797, was an eventful day in the history 
 of the Church in Massachusetts, for as that was the 
 first day of the Annual Convention of the Diocese, 
 held in Trinity Church, Boston, the Bishop was to be 
 formally welcomed. The Secretary of the Convention 
 thus reports the incident : — “ The Delegates being 
 seated in the front pews in the Church, the Clergy 
 conducted the Bishop, clothed in his Episcopal robes, 
 from the Vestry-room to the Altar, where he took his 
 seat on the north side, the Clergy standing in front. 
 The Rev. Dr. Parker ascended to the south side, and, 
 turning to the Congregation, read the vote of the Con- 
 vention at their annual meeting, 1796, making choice 
 of the Rev. Dr. Edward Bass for their Bishop, and the 
 
44 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 Bishop-elect’s answer.” He also read the testimonials 
 of the Bishops officiating at the Consecration. Then 
 the Rev. Dr. Walter, now returned from Nova Scotia, 
 and Rector of Christ Church, advanced within the 
 rails, receiving their first Bishop, and delivered an 
 address, to which the Bishop gave “ an affectionate 
 answer.” 
 
 Thus quietly did a Bishop, so long dreaded in this 
 Commonwealth, enter upon the duties of his office. 
 He came, however, not as a Lord Bishop, but as the 
 shepherd of a flock. Fortunately, in temperament and 
 character, he had no desire to emphasize his authority, 
 or imitate the state of English Bishops. He well real- 
 ized what the history of our Church in this country has 
 shown again and again, — that the American people 
 have no interest in a Bishop who, assuming prelatical 
 authority, appeals to the dignity and state of the Epis- 
 copate in the past ; but that they will give their fullest 
 confidence to an American Bishop, who in character, 
 spiritual dignity, and humility, is the chief shepherd of 
 his flock. 
 
 For six years Bishop Bass filled with faithfulness, 
 good sense, and industry, the offices of Bishop of Mas- 
 sachusetts and Rector of St. Paul’s Church, Newbury- 
 port. The Church had not then caught sight of the 
 modern Bishop as a leader in Missionary enterprises 
 and the organizer of work. The strange appearance 
 of the lawn sleeves was enough to satisfy the different 
 congregations. 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 45 
 
 The territory of Bishop Bass’s jurisdiction was large, 
 including Massachusetts with Maine and Rhode Island. 
 He visited New Hampshire, though it was not until 
 1803 that that Diocese formally asked him to “take 
 the Churches in the State under his Pastoral Charge.” 
 Vermont made the same request just before his death. 
 
 His Episcopal duties were, however, not engross- 
 ing. He occasionally visited the different Parishes as 
 far as Bristol, Rhode Island, though he never reached 
 the Berkshire Churches. He presided at the Diocesan 
 Conventions held in Boston, in Concert Hall, Library 
 Hall, or Trinity Church. He ordained (as far as we 
 know) nine men, of whom two, Dehon and Bowen, 
 were later Bishops of South Carolina. He attended 
 the meeting of the General Convention held in Phila- 
 delphia in 1797, and met there his brethren in the 
 Episcopate. He assisted, with Bishops White and 
 Provoost, in New Haven, in the Consecration of the 
 Rev. Dr. Jarvis, as the successor of Bishop Seabury, 
 Bishop of Connecticut. 
 
 He consecrated, in 1789, St. Paul’s Church, Ded- 
 ham, which had taken the place of the old Church, 
 which fell the year before. 
 
 Our thoughts, as no doubt did the Bishop’s, when 
 on his Visitations, habitually recur to his old town. 
 He had returned home, and, with his added dignity, 
 preserved the same simplicity. Once before a Bishop 
 had been in the town; for in 1792 Mr. Bass wrote of 
 a Visitation by Bishop Seabury : “ Last summer we 
 
46 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 had a high Sunday here. Bishop Seabury preached in 
 our Church, and confirmed an hundred and thirty or 
 forty persons. Not more than half the people who 
 came to Church could get in.” 
 
 About six months after the death of his first wife, 
 Dr. Bass had taken to himself another, Mercy Phillips, 
 who was now his helpmate. Clothed in a long, black 
 coat, with ample pocket folds, small clothes and black 
 silk stockings, the Bishop was a familiar figure on the 
 street. His three-cornered hat shaded a round and 
 kindly face, which was framed in a sweep of his long, 
 waving wig. His house was ever open to guests, and 
 he was welcomed by his neighbors as a man full of 
 anecdote, humor, courtesy and humane disposition. 
 His friend and Warden, Dudley A. Tyng, at proper 
 intervals caused a new three-cornered hat to appear 
 upon the peg, from which the old one as mysteriously 
 disappeared. 
 
 As a preacher he was plain, practical, and full of 
 kindly exhortations to good conduct, based upon the 
 foundations of an evangelical faith. He represented 
 our Church as distinctly a Church of order, dignity and 
 dutiful love. A vein of humor ran through some of 
 his sermons, which was more clearly revealed in his 
 social discourse. 
 
 As a citizen he was esteemed by all. For several 
 years we find him, together with all the other Ministers 
 of Newburyport, appointed a member of a Committee 
 “ to visit the Schools.” The impression that one gains 
 
Historical Discourse . 
 
 47 
 
 from the various records is that he, more than any 
 Minister in the town, illustrated the humane, the 
 ethical and social features of the Christian religion. 
 With the Ministers of other denominations he always 
 sustained the kindest relations. The Rev. Dr. Bent- 
 ley, Pastor of the East Meeting House, Salem, and an 
 ardent patriot, was his close friend. A letter of four 
 lines from the Bishop to Dr. Bentley is suggestive : 
 “ My dear Sir, Your heart is benevolent, your head is 
 liberal ; as your memory may be treacherous, I take 
 the liberty to remind you of the tobacco.” 
 
 The years following the Treaty of Peace had brought 
 great prosperity to Newburyport. This, together with 
 the increasing Parish, and perhaps the sense of dignity 
 in having a Bishop for their Rector, caused the Con- 
 gregation to respond to the Bishop’s desire for a new 
 Church. One of the great occasions of his life was 
 the laying of the corner-stone of a new Church in 
 Newburyport, in place of the old one in which he had 
 officiated for almost fifty years. Mr. Tyng had written 
 to Dr. Bentley that “ we are building a new Church for 
 our good friend Doctor Bass. The excellent old gen- 
 tleman is so delighted with the thing that he must 
 needs have a ceremony in laying the corner-stone.” 
 As the Bishop was a Mason, he invited the Grand 
 Lodge of Massachusetts to take charge of the cere- 
 mony. It was a great day for him when, after having 
 performed service in the Second Presbyterian Meeting 
 House, he walked with the procession to the site of the 
 
48 
 
 Bishop Lawrence s 
 
 new Church, passing under a triumphal arch, to assist 
 at the laying of the corner-stone under Masonic aus- 
 pices, and to listen to the address of Dr. Bentley. 
 
 Until the Church was completed, and the carved 
 mitre was set on the apex of the tower, the Congrega- 
 tion worshipped in the Second Presbyterian Meeting 
 House. It was an even greater day when the Bishop 
 consecrated the new St. Paul’s Church, the material 
 witness to his faithful work in the spiritual edification 
 of his people. 
 
 H is last public duty was characteristic. At the 
 invitation of the Newburyport Humane Society for the 
 preservation of sailors’ lives, of which he was a mem- 
 ber, he preached a sermon, in which he pointed out 
 the Saviour as the One to whom the frightened sailors 
 turned in their peril upon the Sea of Galilee. This 
 sermon, which was afterwards printed, was preached 
 upon Tuesday, September 6 ; on the following Thurs- 
 day, while preparing to go to Portland to consecrate a 
 Church, the Bishop was taken ill, and in two days, 
 upon Saturday, September io, 1803, in the seventy- 
 sixth year of his age, he fell asleep. On the following 
 Tuesday his body was placed at rest beside the Church, 
 and in the midst of the people whom for half a century 
 he had so faithfully served. 
 
 I can close with no more fitting eulogy than the 
 words spoken by the Rev. Dr. Parker, his old pupil 
 and friend, his successor in the Episcopate : — 
 
Historical Discourse. 
 
 49 
 
 “ Dr. Bass was a sound divine, a critical scholar, an ac- 
 complished gentleman, and an exemplary Christian. His 
 manners were polished, his disposition amiable, his temper 
 mild, his conversation improving, his benevolence warm, his 
 piety uniform, his charity unlimited .... In his public dis- 
 courses he aimed at plainness and usefulness. From subjects 
 the least connected with practical topics he rarely failed to 
 draw something calculated to mend the hearts or manners 
 of his hearers. 
 
 “ He had nothing of that candor which looks with equal 
 indifference on all opinions. With the most scrupulous 
 respect for the rights of conscience and of private judgment 
 in others, he united a firm and unshaken adherence to that 
 system of Christian doctrine and discipline which he had 
 adopted from conviction .... 
 
 “But it was in the elevated station of a Diocesan that 
 the character of this excellent man was most fully displayed. 
 Anxious above all things to approve himself to the great 
 Head of the Church, his humility grew with the honors con- 
 ferred upon him by his brethren. So far was he from claim- 
 ing the distinctions appertaining to his rank, that he did not 
 receive them without sensible pain, and constantly exhibited 
 a winning example of meekness and gentleness, which gave 
 lustre to all his accomplishments and to all his virtues. 
 
 “ He died as he had lived, full of piety, resignation and 
 humility, and is doubtless now receiving the rewards of a 
 long and diligent life spent in the services of God and his 
 fellow-men.” 
 
ADDRESSES AT THE LUNCHEON 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EPISCOPALIAN CLUB. 
 
THE ADDRESSES. 
 
 MR. CHARLES G. SAUNDERS, 
 
 Diceslprest&cnt of tbe Club. 
 
 B RETHREN of the Episcopalian Club: — I give 
 you a hearty greeting at this our last meeting 
 of the season, and in your name and behalf I extend 
 a most cordial welcome to our guests, our Right 
 Reverend Fathers and the many other friends, both 
 Clerical and Lay, who have come to join with us in 
 celebrating this Centennial Anniversary of the Con- 
 secration of the First Bishop of Massachusetts. 
 
 I must first express my unfeigned regret that he 
 whom you had chosen to preside over your meetings 
 of this year, the President of our Club, Mr. Robert 
 Treat Paine, is detained at home by illness. I can- 
 not tell you how sorry I am that it has fallen upon 
 me, with but short notice, to do what he would have 
 done so much more gracefully and eloquently than 
 I can possibly do, could he have been with us 
 
54 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 to-day. We send him our warmest sympathies, with 
 the hope that he may soon be restored to health 
 and strength. 
 
 We have met at this time, later in the season 
 than is our custom, in order that we may join with 
 the Bishop and the Standing Committee in this 
 happy celebration ; and it is appropriate that our 
 Club should always take as much part as is possible 
 in such commemorations, in order to bring home to 
 ourselves the lessons they teach. Our very name 
 indeed seems to indicate the fitness of our taking 
 part in an Episcopal Anniversary. I believe it is 
 unique among the designations of Church Clubs in 
 this country, and I have sometimes seen the mem- 
 bers of other Clubs smile at what they regard a 
 curious name, but that does not disturb us much in 
 Massachusetts. I think we rather pride ourselves in 
 being a little different from other folk, — at least we are 
 fond of saying we are, — and our name may mean more 
 than some of our critics think. If we are disposed 
 to lay a little more stress here in Massachusetts on 
 Episcopacy than upon other Christian doctrines, it 
 is perhaps because such teaching is more needed in 
 this community ; and surely there is no very great 
 harm in our being a little high in our views of the 
 authority of the Episcopate. 
 
 It has been the custom of the President to review 
 the notable events that have occurred in the Church 
 since the preceding meeting. I do not know that 
 
The Episcopalian Club . 
 
 55 
 
 anything particularly notable has happened on this 
 side of the water since our dinner in January, but 
 perhaps this is not wholly a misfortune. We are 
 taught in Holy Scripture “ that the Kingdom of God 
 cometh not with observation,” and in one of our 
 Collects we pray God that the Church may joyfully 
 serve Him in all godly quietness. We have a right, 
 I think, to believe that the Church has not passed 
 through the season of Lent and come to this joyful 
 Easter-tide without gaining in spiritual force, and 
 being the better prepared to grasp the problems 
 that confront it. 
 
 There is one important event taking place at the 
 present time, to which I must allude. Trinity Church, 
 New York, is this week celebrating her two hun- 
 dredth anniversary. Two hundred years in England 
 would not seem a very long Parish life, but in this 
 country there are but few that have attained it, and 
 none indeed that have had the striking history of 
 this, the greatest parochial organization in our 
 American Church. Her celebration has deprived us 
 of some guests that we had hoped to have with us 
 to-day, but we send her our most hearty congratu- 
 lations, with the prayer that this great and splendid 
 Parish may go on in the years to come with the 
 magnificent work she has so long been doing. 
 
 Across the water, a notable event has indeed oc- 
 curred within the last few weeks, the mention of 
 which is most appropriate at this time. Doubtless 
 
56 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 you all remember that His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, 
 last September, after months of deliberation, issued 
 the Bull “ Apostolicae Curae,” in which he denied 
 the validity of Anglican Orders. He drops altogether 
 the “ Nag’s Head ” fable, which Roman Controver- 
 sialists so often used when denying our Orders, and 
 virtually admits that we have a tactual succession. 
 He decides, however, that the Anglican Ordinal 
 between 1552 and the last revision in 1662, lacked 
 certain essential words, and decides that as we had 
 lost valid Orders during that century, a revision of 
 the Ordinal with a restoration of the essentials that 
 were wanting, would not restore to us a valid suc- 
 cession, the chain having been once broken. 
 
 The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have 
 recently issued an Encyclical to the Bishops of the 
 Catholic Church throughout the world, in which they 
 answer the Pope’s Bull. This letter, dignified and 
 courteous, free from the bitterness formerly so often 
 found in such polemical discussions, displays a wealth 
 of learning and research ; in it the Archbishops go 
 into the question of our Orders at great length. 
 They show that the Roman Pontificals previous to the 
 ninth century were also lacking in those very things 
 which the Pope now claims to be essential, and 
 which the English Ordinal lacked previous to the 
 revision of 1662, and demonstrate that if the English 
 Church lost the succession, the Roman Church for 
 the same reason never had a valid succession before 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 57 
 
 the ninth century, and so of course never had one 
 at all. This letter sets forth in unmistakable terms 
 the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Altar, 
 as held by the Anglican Church, and proves that 
 we lack neither Catholic faith nor Catholic Orders. 
 While it is true that our Church for herself did not 
 need such justification, and while we have no doubt 
 about our Orders, it is well that her highest digni- 
 taries have so ably set forth our position for the 
 information of other Churches. 
 
 Two thoughts are brought to our minds by this 
 Anniversary. First, — the thought of Bishop Bass 
 himself, his life and his history ; and second, the 
 fact that just one hundred years ago the Church in 
 Massachusetts became complete, in thus, for the first 
 time in its history, having the full complement of 
 Orders, — Bishops, Priests and Deacons. 
 
 I shall not attempt to go at length into the facts 
 and events of the life of Dr. Bass. The Bishop 
 very fully covered them in his able and interesting 
 discourse in Trinity Church this morning, and they 
 will doubtless be treated again in the other addresses 
 that make a part of this celebration, not only here 
 but in Newburyport. 
 
 Dr. Bass was the first Bishop consecrated for this 
 State, his Consecration antedating that of the first 
 Roman Catholic Bishop of Boston. The history of 
 the times shows that he was a remarkable man. 
 
58 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 Newburyport in the last century, before the days 
 of railroads and the crowding of life into great 
 centres, was relatively a much more important place 
 than it is to-day, and we find that he settled there 
 immediately after his Ordination, first, as Assistant 
 in St. Paul’s Parish. He soon after became its Rec- 
 tor, and passed the rest of a long life in this same 
 town ; for he remained the Rector of St. Paul’s during 
 his whole Episcopate, and now lies buried in its 
 churchyard. Pie was called upon to preside at the 
 meetings of the Clergy soon after the Revolution, 
 and was always a striking figure in the Church his- 
 tory of the period. 
 
 It is hard for us to realize fully the difficulties 
 of the Episcopal Clergy at that day. Bound by their 
 oath of allegiance to the Crown and to the English 
 Church, — many of them Missionaries sent out by the 
 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and sup- 
 ported by its revenues, — when the Colonies renounced 
 allegiance to the English Crown, and declared them- 
 selves independent, the position of the Clergy was 
 indeed a difficult one. Many left their charges and 
 went to England or to the loyal Colonies. Bass was 
 a patriot and remained firm at his post. When re- 
 quested by his Vestry, after the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, to give up prayers for the Royal Family, 
 as being the only consistent course for Americans, 
 he yielded, and through all these difficult times per- 
 formed well his duties both as priest and citizen. 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 59 
 
 The Rector at King’s Chapel deserted, and that 
 Church was lost to us. Byles left Christ Church, 
 Boston, and Walter, Trinity Church, New York, but 
 Bass remained faithful, and we find him at the end 
 of the struggle strong in his position and holding 
 the esteem of his fellow-citizens. 
 
 The views of the Church in Massachusetts and in 
 Connecticut in regard to the Episcopate seem to have 
 been similar. Bishop Seabury, as you all know, re- 
 ceived his Consecration at Aberdeen from the Non- 
 juring Scotch Bishops. After waiting months in 
 London for Consecration at the hands of the English 
 Episcopate, tired and weary with the delays, and 
 with difficulties that then seemed almost insurmount- 
 able, he went to Scotland, and there obtained what 
 he had failed to receive in England. We know that 
 when later, Bishops White and Provoost returned 
 from London, having received Consecration at Lam- 
 beth, many questions were raised as to Bishop 
 Seabury’s Consecration : Massachusetts had no doubts, 
 for we find in 1789, an Act of the Clergy of Massa- 
 chusetts and New Hampshire, recommending the 
 Rev. Edward Bass for Consecration, and requesting 
 the Bishops in the States of Connecticut, New York 
 and Pennsylvania “ to unite in canonically investing 
 him with the Apostolic office and powers,” and we 
 find that he was chosen Bishop, “ to be received as 
 such when canonically consecrated and invested with 
 the Apostolic office.” This is an important point to 
 
6o 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 be borne in mind. When everything seemed so dark 
 and uncertain, when the Episcopal Church was dis- 
 trusted by the people, her Clergy few, their flocks 
 dispersed, and many of the churches closed; when 
 even in high quarters there were suggestions that we 
 might for a time at least go on without the Episco- 
 pate, — Massachusetts did not waver. 
 
 She was one with Connecticut in her views of the 
 Apostolic succession, and when the latter Diocese 
 obtained a Bishop with valid Orders, consecrated by 
 true Bishops, she did not question the regularity of 
 his commission, but was glad to receive from him 
 the gift she had so long been wanting. We may 
 believe, I think, that this was not a little due to the 
 man whom we are to-day honoring, and to Dr. Par- 
 ker, his successor in this high office, who were the 
 leaders among us at that time. 
 
 How different indeed is the condition of the 
 Church in Massachusetts to-day compared to that of 
 a hundred years ago, when it first became fully 
 equipped for its work by the Consecration of its first 
 Bishop. Then, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa- 
 chusetts and Rhode Island were all governed by a 
 single Bishop, and the number of Parishes and mem- 
 bers was small. Comparing it with the Church in 
 its present condition, the advance is indeed wonder- 
 ful ; but I think there is a little danger on occasions 
 like this of looking too much upon the bright side 
 of things. The Church to-day in Massachusetts is 
 
The Episcopalian Club . 
 
 61 
 
 not what it should be, either in numbers or power. 
 Upon us rests the duty to sustain her faith, to widen 
 her influence, and extend her borders. We believe 
 that she is the best adapted to meet the needs of 
 the day, and now let us all unite to do what in us 
 lies, to make her the more able to accomplish that 
 for which she has been divinely commissioned. 
 
 You do not, however, expect a long speech from 
 me to-day, and it is my pleasant duty to call upon 
 one who needs no introduction, and who, although 
 he has spoken at length this morning, will say a few 
 words upon this occasion. I present to you the Right 
 Reverend Bishop of the Diocese. 
 
 BISHOP LAWRENCE. 
 
 It is my pleasant duty to give a word of hearty 
 welcome to our guests from the Dioceses existing 
 at the time of the Consecration of Bishop Bass. 
 
 One hundred years ago these Dioceses, staggering 
 under the burdens of a desolating war, joined to- 
 gether in organizing the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 and obtaining for it the Succession of the Anglican 
 Church. From its weakness the Church has risen 
 to great strength. Massachusetts, rejoicing in her 
 growth and strong in her loyalty to the Church, ex- 
 tends a cordial greeting to the representatives from 
 other States. 
 
 The Laymen of Massachusetts from the time of 
 Bishop Bass to this day have been active in the 
 
62 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 Church and foremost in her development. It is a 
 happy and natural event therefore that a Laymen’s 
 Club should invite us all to meet to-day and discuss 
 the significance of this celebration to other Dioceses 
 and the Church at large. 
 
 We are therefore grateful to our friends who have 
 come from a distance to give us their word of coun- 
 sel and cheer. 
 
 MR. SAUNDERS. 
 
 Three years ago when our Club held a breakfast 
 to welcome the Church Congress, then being held 
 in Boston, the Mayor was with us to extend his 
 welcome to our guests from abroad. To-day, we 
 also have had the Mayor with us, but he has been 
 called away by another engagement, and desired me 
 to express for him his regrets that he was unable to 
 remain and speak to you on this occasion. 
 
 The first Diocese in this country to obtain a 
 Bishop was Connecticut, and by a coincidence the 
 primacy of our Church, which is invested in the 
 Senior Bishop, to-day belongs to the Bishop of Con- 
 necticut. We are indeed very sorry that we have 
 not Bishop Williams with us, who is unable through 
 bodily infirmity to be present to-day ; but he has 
 sent a worthy representative, who is no stranger to 
 our Club, and who holds many important positions 
 in the Church in this country. During the revision 
 of the Book of Common Prayer, when Dr. Hunting- 
 ton, the head of the Commission on the part of the 
 
The Episcopalian Club . 
 
 63 
 
 Lower House of the General Convention, retired 
 from the work, Dr. Hart was appointed his successor, 
 and carried the undertaking through to its termina- 
 tion. He is to-day Custodian of the Standard Book 
 of Common Prayer, and also the Secretary of the 
 House of Bishops. At the celebration in Scotland 
 of the Centennial Anniversary of the Consecration 
 of Bishop Seabury, he accompanied Bishop Williams 
 as his Chaplain. I take great pleasure in introducing 
 to you, Prof. Samuel Hart, of Trinity College, 
 Hartford. 
 
 THE REV. DR. HART. 
 
 When your first Bishop was elected and conse- 
 crated, the Church in Connecticut was without an 
 Episcopal head. Our first Bishop, after a most 
 eventful and fruitful life, having served his genera- 
 tion as well as his Diocese by the will of God, had 
 fallen on sleep ; and though there had been two 
 elections to the vacant Episcopate, the Presbyters cho- 
 sen had, for good reasons, declined to accept the office. 
 But while Connecticut was thus prevented from 
 taking a direct part in the Consecration of the first 
 Bishop of Massachusetts, it was providentially ordered 
 that through him, before the close of the year, our 
 second Bishop brought again to us the Scottish suc- 
 cession which he had received through Bishop Clag- 
 gett. Thus Bishop Bass is a connecting link between 
 Bishop Seabury and Bishop Jarvis. 
 
64 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 But in other and really more important ways, as 
 indeed we have been already reminded, the name of 
 your first Bishop suggests to us the early unity of 
 conviction and of action which then was among the 
 Churchmen of New England, and how it had great 
 influence in securing unity of organization for the 
 Church in this whole land. And indeed it was but 
 natural tfyat our ancestors should have been found 
 in agreement. From the very first our Colonies had 
 had much in common ; and in spite of differences, 
 Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut 
 and New Haven had been bound together by many 
 ties. And if, in the one case in which there was a 
 filial relation between the two Colonies, Connecticut 
 left its home at the Bay rather more willingly than 
 one likes to have a daughter leave a mother, yet 
 when trouble or controversy arose — and all contro- 
 versy and most trouble was theological in those 
 days — the daughter was not loth to look to the 
 mother for counsel, and the mother was not at all 
 loth to give it. And we have from the very begin- 
 ning strong evidence that some of the Colonists had 
 not quite forgotten all that they had learned from 
 the historic Church in the old home. 
 
 The first controversy which caused excitement 
 here in Boston as well as in Hartford, was between 
 those who followed the strict Congregational way and 
 those who had enough of the Churchly — or at least 
 let us say of the parochial — spirit left in them to 
 
The Episcopalian Club . 
 
 65 
 
 feel that they could not quite break with all its prin 
 ciples and all its customs. The adoption of the 
 Saybrook platform in Connecticut gave to our Stand- 
 ing Order a character different from that which 
 marked the Independent societies here, both prepar- 
 ing the way for the introduction of Episcopacy and 
 setting a barrier against the approach of Unitarianism. 
 
 Later came the time when the ominous tidings 
 reached the Bay that the collegiate school in Con- 
 necticut, but recently removed to its new home in 
 New Haven and beginning to be a worthy sister to 
 the older institution at Cambridge, was in imminent 
 danger of becoming a hot-bed of prelacy. Its two 
 officers of instruction, and with them five others of 
 the most influential and learned ministers of the 
 neighborhood, had been so affected by the writings 
 of English divines which they had studied in the 
 College library, that some of them were satisfied that 
 they could no longer act as ministers in Christ’s 
 Church without having received ordination from a 
 Bishop, while the others had very serious doubts in 
 the matter. 
 
 From the Bay there came voices of lamentation 
 and admonition ; but Rector Cutler and Tutor Brown 
 and ex-Tutor Johnson sailed for England to seek the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury and ask for ordination ; 
 and they were soon followed by one of their com- 
 panions. Brown died in England, the first of those 
 whose names on the too long roll testify to what the 
 
66 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 mother Church might have done but would not do 
 for us ; Cutler came back to your Christ Church, and 
 Johnson to be the real founder and for a long time 
 the acknowledged leader of the Church in Connect- 
 icut. For in this most marvellous way, quite un- 
 paralleled (I suppose) in all history, the Church in 
 our Colony had practically its origin. Services had 
 indeed been held by a missionary from Westchester 
 County, under the protection of the zealous Colonel 
 Heathcote — it was the only time when Episcopacy 
 in Connecticut had the defence of the “ civil arm ” 
 — and one parish had been organized ; but the whole 
 life of our Diocese comes from events that had their 
 beginning when the seven ministers read Anglican 
 theology together in the library at New Haven, and 
 their turning-point in the declaration of these same 
 ministers on the day after Commencement in 1722. 
 
 Now in all this, while there was in many ways a 
 close connection and a community of interest and 
 sympathy between the Episcopalians of Massachusetts 
 and those of Connecticut, there were also circum- 
 stances which cast their history in somewhat different 
 moulds. You had Royal Governors, and a King’s 
 Chapel, and chaplains sent from England ; you could 
 claim that you were legally the Established Church, 
 although you were prevented by dissenters from ex- 
 ercising all your prerogatives ; you had at least a 
 prestige of honor and a sort of inherited position. 
 We in matters external were autochthonous ; we held 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 67 
 
 strongly to the doctrines of the Church of England, 
 but it was because we had studied out its principles 
 and claims for ourselves ; our Priests were in English 
 Orders, but it was because they had gone to England 
 and asked for authority to minister to their people ; 
 we were but dissenters, though dignified by being 
 ranked legally as “ sober dissenters.” So it came 
 about that our Churchmanship was in the first place 
 based on strong principle, and in the second place 
 “ purely ecclesiastical.” 
 
 Our Clergymen were sons of our own soil, brought 
 up, educated, and tested at home, living among those 
 who had known them from childhood, often minister- 
 ing in communities of kinsfolk and early friends, and 
 maintaining a good reputation for godliness and 
 learning and self-sacrifice. We had on the roll of 
 our Clergy in Connecticut before the Revolution but 
 two or three who were of English birth, and two 
 who were natives of other Colonies. We sent abroad 
 forty-three candidates for Holy Orders, all college 
 graduates ; and of the thirty-seven who escaped the 
 dangers of the sea, the deadly pestilence, and the 
 violence of enemies, thirty entered upon ministerial 
 work within our borders. For this reason the Church 
 in our Colony was a Church of the people; and for 
 this reason, in spite of some acts of hardship to in- 
 dividuals, the attitude of the community towards it, 
 both officially and personally, was on the whole 
 kindly and fair. 
 
68 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 A person who was a Tory on principle generally 
 commanded respect in Connecticut, if he deserved 
 it for other reasons ; Dr. Seabury, while he was 
 abroad seeking Consecration, was assured that the 
 civil authority would make no objection to his return 
 with an ecclesiastical title ; and when he came back, 
 the little irritation which he caused found sufficient 
 expression in more frequent use of the title “ Bishop” 
 for the ministers of the Standing Order, and the 
 substitution of episcopi for pastores on the programme 
 for the College Commencement. The observance of 
 Christmas was never a crime by our laws ; and now 
 for more than a hundred consecutive years our Gov- 
 ernors have appointed Good Friday as the annual 
 State fast. In fact, the Episcopal Church in Con- 
 necticut, although she has held strong doctrines in 
 matters ecclesiastical and sacerdotal, has always been, 
 and has been recognized as being, a Church of and in 
 a democracy. 
 
 Matters were not altogether after this fashion — 
 as I suppose no one can doubt — in Massachusetts. 
 The somewhat aristocratic flavor of the English Es- 
 tablishment almost of necessity made itself felt, 
 claimed some rights, and provoked some opposition. 
 Therefore we cannot but wonder a little at the 
 harmony of conviction and of action which there was 
 between the Churchmen of the royal Province and 
 those of the democratic Colony, which soon became 
 two sister States. I do not mean of course, to ex- 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 69 
 
 press surprise that there was agreement in faith, or 
 in order, or in worship ; this was taken for granted ; 
 in those days to accept the Church’s doctrine, and 
 discipline, and forms of devotion, cost so much that 
 he who had accepted them did not readily give them 
 up ; and his neighbors did not expect to have him 
 treat them as things of no consequence. But that 
 matters should have been looked upon from almost 
 exactly the same stand-point, that the truth should 
 have been seen in so nearly the same perspective, 
 that there should have been so often a close agree- 
 ment as to what was the most important duty of the 
 hour and the way in which it should be undertaken 
 — this does seem extraordinary ; I might better say, 
 this does show the gracious ordering of Divine Provi- 
 dence. 
 
 When Bishop Seabury, with his education and 
 experiences, and Dr. Samuel Parker, with his edu- 
 cation and experiences, found themselves in critical 
 times such ready co-workers, it was a proof that 
 there was a good strong underlying principle of 
 Churchmanship that had been nurtured in the differ- 
 ent parts of New England, even under circumstances 
 which seemed not altogether the same. 
 
 I need not remind you, here and now, of all that 
 we owe to the patience and boldness and wisdom 
 of Bishop Seabury and Dr. Parker, in the succes- 
 sive steps of the movements which brought about 
 the union of the Church in this land. It has entered 
 
70 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 into our history, and is worthily commemorated on 
 this centenary of the Consecration of your first 
 Bishop, whose name is so closely connected with the 
 earliest proposition for a practical union of the Church 
 in New England with that in the other States. 
 
 But, as I have alluded to some of the distin- 
 guishing marks of Churchmanship in the ancient 
 Diocese for which I have been asked to speak, I 
 may be pardoned if I say a word further in regard 
 to them. I am well aware that there is such a thing 
 as a Diocesan narrowness, which is not many degrees 
 wider than parochial narrowness ; and that the life of 
 the Church may not and must not be restrained in 
 channels of human devising, or even of historical 
 shaping, and yet, as we all know, there is an idio- 
 syncrasy, an r,dos that belongs to nearly every assem- 
 blage of men, from the great nation to the little 
 family, never easily defined, sometimes not easily de- 
 tected, which yet is real, and natural, and most whole- 
 some in its working and its results. It often comes 
 from what in a large sense of the word may be 
 called heredity, and is the resultant of forces and 
 powers that have worked upon men and through 
 men, and have made their actions tell upon following 
 generations. This need not be a sign of narrow- 
 ness ; it is rightly a mark of individuality. You will 
 find something in the alumni of any university, if 
 they are worthy sons of their alma mater , which 
 marks their scholarship as in some way different from 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 7 l 
 
 that of the alumni of other universities ; and every 
 institution of true learning, if it is at all doing its 
 real work, leaves an impress, a “ character,” upon 
 those who come under its influence. In like manner 
 we honor those whose life and teaching show that 
 they belong to the school of some great master, and 
 we do not feel that this detracts either from their 
 independence or from the value of their work as in- 
 dividuals. 
 
 Every nation has its national peculiarities, in one 
 sense the crystallization and in another sense the 
 life of its history ; even a little nation, if it has had 
 a notable part to play, sets a mark upon all its citi- 
 zens ; and we do not feel quite satisfied with a man 
 who is so absolutely cosmopolitan that nothing about 
 him shows the land of his birth, or of his training, 
 or of his chosen allegiance. In some such way as 
 this I think that a plea may be made for Diocesan 
 Churchmanship. If we may not safely break with 
 the past ; if we cherish the life which has come to 
 us through the experiences of our spiritual ancestors ; 
 if we know what it cost them to kindle the torch 
 which they kept burning not for themselves alone but 
 also that they might hand it on to us who were to 
 come after ; then surely we need no more be ashamed 
 that we have inherited an ^#0? as Churchmen, than 
 that we have something in us which marks us as 
 members of a family or citizens of a nation. 
 
7 2 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 I do not think that we need to be ashamed that 
 we have received in a particular way principles of 
 steadfast loyalty, of strict obedience, and of faithful 
 service ; or that we believe that in somewhat the 
 same way we can best maintain and transmit them. 
 We cannot but value highly that which we know has 
 cost so much ; only we must not depreciate that 
 which others hold at a like cost ; we cannot call that 
 a matter of indifference which has been a true in- 
 spiration of our lives ; only we must not deny the 
 reality of the life which has received its nourishment, 
 albeit from the same source, yet through other chan- 
 nels. The unique beginning and the remarkable 
 history of the Church in Connecticut — a State which 
 has itself a history unlike that of any of its sister 
 States — have fitted it to do a special work, and to 
 have a special influence, while also they have made 
 it necessary that, working with others, it should be 
 in its turn influenced by them. We are reminded 
 to-day of the value of the influence exerted and the 
 influence felt in the earlier days, and how each of 
 the Dioceses of the Church in our infant republic had 
 something to contribute to the due furnishing and 
 instruction of that Church. 
 
 The principles implied in the words used by a 
 recent writer to describe the first Bishop of Connect- 
 icut are principles which commend themselves to all 
 Churchmen: — “That simple, grand, accommodating, 
 uncompromising man ! ” They are the marks of the 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 n 
 
 Churchmanship which was so strong in New England 
 a century ago, and will always be strong wherever 
 it is to be found, while men have high ideas of the 
 Church and lowly ideas of their own importance in 
 it, with wide conceptions of faith and obedience, 
 never limiting God’s grace and yet sure as to the 
 way in which they are bidden to seek it, and never 
 so thinking of privilege as to ignore solemn exhor- 
 tations to duty. The ideal is so lofty that it will not 
 make any earnest man conceited ; the responsibility is 
 so manifold that it will not narrow his convictions or 
 his sympathies. In some such way I venture to hope 
 that the spirit of our Churchmanship, which we dare 
 not throw away and cannot lose, will continue to prove 
 itself a manifestation of the Spirit “ to profit withal ; ” 
 and that, influencing others as we perhaps may, and in- 
 fluenced by others as we doubtless ought to be, we may 
 have a worthy part in the work of the Church during 
 the years that are to follow until the Lord’s return. 
 
 Thus recalling the harmony in which our forefathers 
 in the faith labored together, thankful for all that they 
 were enabled to accomplish for themselves and for 
 their brethren and for the Master, and with most 
 hearty congratulations on the good work that has been 
 done in this Diocese during the century which has 
 passed since your first Bishop was consecrated to his 
 high office, we pray for a blessing on all that yet re- 
 mains for you to do, trusting that we may share in your 
 labors, hoping that we may be partakers of your joy. 
 
74 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 MR. SAUNDERS. 
 
 In reviewing the early history of the Church in 
 the United States, our thoughts at once turn to 
 Pennsylvania, the home of Bishop White, that great 
 statesman and leader, for many years the presiding 
 Bishop of our Church, to whose wise guiding the 
 Church owes so much. Christ Church, Philadelphia, 
 also comes to our minds, a Parish which has filled 
 so important a part in our history, where Gen. 
 Washington and other leaders at that time were 
 wont to worship, and whose Rector was Chaplain to 
 the Continental Congress. We have, as a representa- 
 tive of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, one who has 
 taken a prominent part in its Diocesan affairs, and 
 who has often spoken in Church Congresses. As a 
 son of Harvard, I gladly welcome a Professor from 
 the University of Pennsylvania, the University which 
 gave our Bishop Bass his degree of Doctor of Divinity. 
 I am glad to introduce to you, George W. Pepper, 
 Esq., Professor in the Law Department of the Uni- 
 versity of Pennsylvania. 
 
 MR. GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Episcopalian Club : — I am 
 happy to be the bearer of greetings from the Church 
 in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Diocesan Con- 
 vention was in session yesterday, and by it the follow- 
 ing Resolution was unanimously adopted : 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 75 
 
 Whereas , The Diocese of Massachusetts will to-morrow 
 celebrate the One Hundredth Anniversary of the Consecra- 
 tion of Edward Bass, first Bishop of Massachusetts ; and 
 
 Whereas , The fraternal relations subsisting between the 
 members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese 
 of Pennsylvania and their brethren in Massachusetts are 
 even closer and more intimate than those which existed be- 
 tween their ancestors a century ago : therefore be it 
 
 Resolved , That the Bishop of Pennsylvania and the Cler- 
 ical and Lay Deputies, in the One Hundred and Thirteenth 
 Annual Convention assembled, send their most cordial greet- 
 ings to the Church in Massachusetts, and extend their warm- 
 est congratulations upon the occasion of the Centennial 
 Celebration of the Founding of the Diocese in that State. 
 
 In conveying to you this assurance of our affection- 
 ate regard, I am discharging a duty which would be 
 pleasant under any circumstances, but it is particularly 
 pleasant under the circumstances as they exist — for 
 the Diocese of Pennsylvania had a direct interest and 
 an important part in the events which we are assem- 
 bled to commemorate. 
 
 Whenever Pennsylvania, on such an occasion as 
 this, is paying her tribute of loving respect to her 
 departed sons, it is the custom for the representative 
 from Massachusetts to emphasize the fact that Benja- 
 min Franklin, the greatest of them all, was a Massa- 
 chusetts man. It was doubtless one of your fellow 
 citizens who proposed that most unkind toast: “ Here’s 
 to the three great Pennsylvanians — James Wilson of 
 
76 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 Scotland, Albert Gallatin of Switzerland, and Benjamin 
 Franklin of Massachusetts ! ” I am sorry that history 
 makes it impossible for me to lay claim to Bishop 
 Bass as a Pennsylvanian. I may remind you, however, 
 that as Benjamin Franklin forsook Boston for Philadel- 
 phia as soon as he was old enough to travel, so Edward 
 Bass, of mature age and ripe judgment, made his pil- 
 grimage to the City of Brotherly Love to be conse- 
 crated by the imposition of the hands of Bishop White 
 and to receive an honorary degree from the University 
 of Pennsylvania. On the Centennial Anniversary of 
 the Consecration of Bishop Bass I therefore bring you 
 our heartfelt greetings. 
 
 It has been well said that national recollections are 
 the foundations of national character. We are strongly 
 influenced by the contemplation of the lives and deeds 
 of the Nation’s founders. The true American of to- 
 day is what he is in virtue of the inspiration that he 
 catches from the American past. What is true of the 
 Nation should be true of the Church. When we apply 
 this proposition in its deepest meaning to the Founder 
 and Head of the Christian Church, it becomes, to the 
 Christian, a self-evident proposition. In a sense sim- 
 ilar, but not the same, we can find valuable material 
 for the forming of Christian character in the study of 
 the lives of the Saints ; and we do well to set before 
 our eyes from time to time the founders of our Ameri- 
 can Church as examples of all that is wise and patriotic 
 and true. 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 77 
 
 In this group of founders Massachusetts was repre- 
 sented by Edward Bass, and Pennsylvania by William 
 White. Of your own Bishop it is more fitting that 
 you should speak than I. You are his children in the 
 spirit, and may justly claim the privilege of pronoun- 
 cing over his memory a well- deserved eulogy. I, on 
 the other hand, should not be true to my own Diocese 
 were I to fail, on an occasion like this, to remind you 
 of the debt which Pennsylvania and Massachusetts 
 alike owe to him who may, in some sense, be called 
 the Patriarch of the American Church. 
 
 When the War of the Revolution was over, — when 
 independence had been achieved, — the Nation was 
 confronted with difficulties and beset with dangers 
 which were in many respects more formidable than 
 those through which it had passed. The visible foes 
 of the present had been overcome ; what of the invisi- 
 ble foes of the future ? The Articles of Confederation 
 had proved to be a rope of sand which breaks in 
 twisting. What should take their place? If there was 
 to be a central government, what should be the meas- 
 ure of its powers and in what relation should it stand 
 to the several independent Colonies or States ? Doubt 
 and distrust, envy and rivalry, — these threatened to 
 do their deadly work. The hour of trial had indeed 
 come, and, by the grace of God, with the hour came 
 the man. Who can exaggerate the services which 
 Washington rendered to his country in the time that 
 
78 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 followed ? In those years he showed himself as even 
 a greater man than he had appeared at Valley Forge 
 and at Yorktown. 
 
 Now, the truth of what I have been saying is ad- 
 mitted by us all. We cannot name the names of 
 Washington and his associates without thinking of 
 their deeds ; and to think of their deeds is to glow 
 with patriotic gratitude. But are we not apt to forget 
 that what these men did for our Nation, Bishop White 
 and his associates did for our Church ? The appeal to 
 history justifies the parallel. The Nation had broken 
 away from the Mother Country : had we broken away 
 also from the Mother Church ? The union of Church 
 and State had at first been found intolerable, and had 
 then been made impossible : did this mean the extinc- 
 tion of Episcopacy in America, and the loss of the 
 New World to the Anglican Church ? The air was 
 full of voices which answered “ Yes.” It needed 
 courage to proclaim a contrary view, and wisdom to 
 make the proclamation effectual. The courage and 
 the wisdom were found united in William White, whose 
 memory I ask you to cherish with reverent gratitude 
 at the same time that you look back with loving recol- 
 lection to your own Bishop, Edward Bass. In the long 
 and trying diplomatic episode which issued happily in 
 the complete reconciliation between himself and Bishop 
 Seabury ; in the statesmanlike adaptation of the frame 
 of Church government to the conditions of the new 
 Nation ; in the happy blending of clerical and lay con- 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 79 
 
 trol ; in the wise moderation which enabled him to 
 win for the Church not only toleration but respect and 
 adherence — in these matters, and in a thousand other 
 ways, Bishop White showed himself to be the man 
 chosen of God to guide and guard His Church at a 
 crucial period in its history. Such an occasion as this, 
 therefore, is not merely commemorative. It should be, 
 it cannot fail to be, a source of inspiration to us, in 
 that it brings us into closer contact with those men, 
 after whose model we may well fashion our lives and 
 our conduct. 
 
 The mention of the men recalls the scenes in which 
 they figured. The Philadelphia of a hundred years 
 ago comes before our mind’s eye, and we can readily 
 picture it as it appeared to Edward Bass on the seventh 
 of May, 1797, the day of his Consecration as Bishop. 
 There are, perhaps, those among you who are unkind 
 enough to think that to see the Philadelphia of a cen- 
 tury ago we have only to look on the Philadelphia of 
 to-day — so little do some of our friends know of our 
 progress during the interval. Be that as it may, old 
 Christ Church, like Independence Hall, stands to-day 
 substantially as it stood then. The visitor is still 
 pointed to the pew then lately occupied by Washing- 
 ton and is told that when the great man entered the 
 Church the entire congregation rose and remained 
 standing until he had taken his seat. In the pew next 
 to the pulpit from which Bishop White preached sat 
 Robert Morris, the financier. Benjamin Franklin and 
 
8o 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 Francis Hopkinson were parishioners and Alexander 
 Hamilton was a worshiper there. 
 
 The Philadelphia of that day was a metropolitan 
 city. It may be said to have occupied the position 
 which Boston has since assumed. As long as it was 
 the National Capital the three most prominent officials 
 within its borders were the President of the United 
 States, the Bishop of Pennsylvania, and the Provost of 
 the University. The University officials were strong 
 Churchmen and the institution was a centre of Church 
 influence. The curriculum of study formulated by 
 Provost Smith, for the course in arts, was the basis of 
 the American college course for nearly a century there- 
 after. On all sides the Church was growing and 
 spreading. New Parishes were being formed, and the 
 circle of her influence was continually widening. 
 
 With such an origin, the Diocese of Pennsylvania 
 would indeed be degenerate if her unworthy represen- 
 tative could not give a good account of her. In point 
 of fact, it is well with us. At the Convention which 
 has just closed the Bishop reported a larger number 
 of Confirmations than in any previous year, and a 
 larger amount of money contributed to missionary uses 
 than in any previous year. More than this, the Dio- 
 cese is united and in harmony with itself. The devo- 
 tion to the Bishop is most noteworthy. The time was 
 when those of my way of thinking had a hard time 
 in Pennsylvania, when the adjective “ high,” as ap- 
 plied to a Churchman, had something of the same 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 8 
 
 significance as when applied in law to crimes. Now 
 men of all forms of thought dwell together in unity, 
 and votes in Convention are no longer taken on strict 
 party lines, as they once were. 
 
 Of course we have had our problems to solve. In 
 common with the rest of the Church, we have had our 
 problems of belief — those anxious ^questionings as to 
 Christian truth and verity. We have had to contend 
 with the wave of Agnosticism which has thundered 
 against the walls of the Church. But in the very year 
 in which the completion of the Synthetic Philosophy is 
 being celebrated we may venture the assertion that 
 the tide has turned and has left the territory of the 
 Church as large as ever. In this respect our position 
 is almost as good as that of our little sister Diocese of 
 Delaware, of which Randolph said that she had two 
 counties when the tide was in and three when it 
 was out. 
 
 Again, we have felt the influence of the tendency 
 to exaggerate the truth that religion is three-fourths 
 conduct — with the corresponding tendency to belittle 
 the claims of Catholic dogma upon the attention of 
 thinking men. I believe that I speak for a great body 
 of young men, not only in Pennsylvania but in the 
 Church at large, who have no wish to be numbered 
 among Lord Bacon’s “ discoursing wits who count it a 
 bondage to fix a belief.” They are asking with earnest 
 insistence for definite and positive teaching upon Chris- 
 tian doctrine and our Clergy are beginning to comply 
 
82 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 with the demand. I say this advisedly, and in spite of 
 Professor Davidson’s recent vindication of the superior 
 claims of the creed of the Sultan upon our acceptance^ 
 We have faced the problems presented by^the 
 Higher Criticism of the Scriptures and we have learned 
 to appreciate the unselfish devotion to the cause of 
 scientific truth which characterizes the work of the true 
 higher critic. In Philadelphia, however, with a charac- 
 teristic love of what is ancient, we have emphasized 
 the importance of archaeological research as a co-ordi- 
 nate source of Biblical knowledge ; and the Babylonian 
 expedition sent out by the University of Pennsylvania 
 has already attained important results. We have a 
 little sense of humor, however, and we cannot help 
 seeing the fun in a story recently told at the expense 
 of certain pseudo-critics whose clamor is higher than 
 their criticism. It was related of a farmer that he 
 offered to sell to the keeper of a city hotel a car-load 
 of frogs’ legs. The astonished hotel-keeper expressed 
 his belief that it would be impossible to find frogs 
 enough to fill the order. After some debate he ordered 
 a bushel and the farmer went away. After the lapse 
 of a week the crestfallen countryman returned with half 
 a dozen pairs in a small basket. Upon being pressed 
 for an explanation, he said : “ I never looked into the 
 matter myself before I took the order, but there is a 
 pond just back of my house and, from the noise the 
 frogs made there at night, I thought it would be an 
 easy matter to gather a million of them.” 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 83 
 
 But I can almost hear you saying, “ Enough of the 
 Past : what of the Future ? ” We believe it to be full 
 of promise. We believe that, 'rich in our heritage of 
 Catholic truth, our Church will grow and grow, so that 
 the development of the century that has passed is not 
 worthy to be compared with the glories of future 
 progress. But may I emphasize what I believe to be a 
 condition of progress? It is the recognition of the 
 truth that the mere material growth of the Church, the 
 development of new Parishes and Missions, the secur- 
 ing of sites in new territory, must be made the subject 
 of more careful study. I believe (and I am speaking 
 from the point of view of mere business and general- 
 ship) that the hands of the Episcopate must be 
 strengthened and that larger demands must be made 
 upon the Bishops in respect of statesmanship. There 
 are well organized forces in the field with which we 
 must compete. If to the harmlessness of doves we 
 add the wisdom of serpents, Massachusetts, Pennsyl- 
 vania and the American Church have nothing to fear ! 
 
 MR. SAUNDERS. 
 
 We regret very much that we have not with us 
 to-day a representative from the Diocese of New 
 York. Several would have been glad to have been 
 here, were it not for their own celebration in Trinity 
 Church. I have, however, a letter from Mr. Everett 
 P. Wheeler, to whom we have gladly listened in 
 
8 4 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 times past, and who was prevented by business en- 
 gagements from coming here to-day. 
 
 The last Diocese to seek the Consecration of its 
 Bishop abroad was Virginia. With the Consecration 
 of Bishop Madison at Lambeth in 1790, there were 
 then three Bishops in this country, who had received 
 their Orders in the direct English line, and through 
 the Bishop of Maryland Bishop Bass traced his 
 Orders to Bishop Madison. We have asked a Vir- 
 ginian to our board to-day, — one, who through a 
 long line of ancestors is connected with the first 
 planting of the Church at Jamestown ; a graduate of 
 the University of Virginia, and a member of its gov- 
 erning Board, and a delegate to the General Con- 
 vention from his Diocese. 
 
 Massachusetts is said to love a “ Mugwump,” and 
 she will gladly welcome one who has left his party 
 for conscience’ sake, when he believed his party to 
 be wrong. Surely every one will sympathize with a 
 man, who during the last campaign threw the whole 
 weight of his character and influence for the cause of 
 sound money ; but whether we sympathize with his 
 cause or not, we honor a man who parted from 
 political friends and associates of a lifetime, when he 
 believed such a course to be for his country’s welfare. 
 I take great pleasure in presenting to you, Joseph 
 Bryan, Esq., of Richmond, Virginia, the editor and 
 proprietor of the “ Richmond Times.” 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 85 
 
 MR. JOSEPH BRYAN. 
 
 Mr. President : — I cannot refrain from at once 
 expressing the great gratification I have in participat- 
 ing in this most interesting occasion. While I bear 
 no commission from the Church in Virginia, as my 
 friend [Dr. Pepper] does from Pennsylvania, I know 
 that if our Diocesan Council had, like his, been in 
 session, I would bring to you the congratulations and 
 Godspeed of those who would rejoice to see this 
 impressive demonstration of the strength of the 
 Church in the once Puritan stronghold. 
 
 There is a special fitness in an expression of sym- 
 pathy and congratulations on this Centennial occasion 
 from Virginia to Massachusetts. The foundation of 
 these two Colonies was the most important of all the 
 events which led to the establishment of the American 
 Union. The settlers at Jamestown and at Plymouth 
 represented respectively the two great divisions of 
 English thought, both in religion and in politics. If 
 Massachusetts was made the home of the Independent 
 and anti-Church and anti-King party, Virginia was 
 founded and inhabited by those who clung to both 
 Church and State, as they had left them at home. 
 If Massachusetts was New England, Virginia was, as 
 it were, a part of Old England itself, with all its 
 traditions and loyalty, set down on this Western 
 shore. The problems of government and of religion 
 
86 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 were approached by the people of Jamestown and of 
 Plymouth from opposite points of view. 
 
 It is noticeable, Mr. President, that of the five Dio- 
 ceses first organized, which have been specially in- 
 vited to participate in this celebration, Virginia, which 
 was the oldest of all the settlements, and was essen- 
 tially a Colony of Churchmen, should here be preceded 
 by Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New York, though 
 followed by Maryland, itself a Church Colony. This 
 fact, that the Church was organized in these three 
 States before it was in Virginia, seems to demand 
 some explanation. 
 
 The Church in Virginia was from the very first the 
 Established Church. Its Minister came with the first 
 settlers, and as soon as even the rudest provision could 
 be made for public worship, it was had, and the Holy 
 Communion was administered according to the usage 
 of the Church of England. The conversion of the 
 savages was one of the avowed objects of the adven- 
 turers in coming to this country. To do this, no other 
 means were thought of than the Gospel as interpreted 
 and taught by the Church of England. 
 
 At the first Legislative Assembly, held at James- 
 town more than a year before the Pilgrims landed, the 
 members took, without hesitation on the part of any, 
 the oath of Supremacy. Provision by law was at once 
 made for the support of the Ministers of the Church, 
 and it was doubtless this provision which did much to 
 undermine the influence of these Ministers for the 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 87 
 
 good of the Church and of the people committed to 
 their charge. No Bishop ever came to look after 
 these sheep in the wilderness. Both Minister and 
 people were left without Episcopal supervision, and as 
 far as the visitation of a Bishop was concerned, the 
 Church in Virginia was like the play of Hamlet, with 
 Hamlet left out. None of our Colonial Churchmen 
 were confirmed, unless they went abroad and received 
 the rite in England. Indeed it is said — and I don’t 
 like to tell it on my brother from Pennsylvania — that 
 Bishop White himself was never confirmed. And so 
 the Virginia ministers who were inducted officially 
 were left to themselves, and often pursued a course of 
 conduct most unworthy of their high calling. 
 
 Their salaries were paid in tobacco, and they were 
 specially solicitous that that tobacco should be of fine 
 quality and promptly delivered. It was soon observed 
 that the best tobacco lands got the best preachers, and 
 poor tobacco lands and poor tobacco had poor preach- 
 ers. And as a quaint old Churchman wrote, “Some 
 land was so mean as only to produce Presbyterians.” 
 
 Salaries being enforceable and not voluntary, the 
 alienation between the Clergy and the people was 
 increased by the unrebuked misconduct of some of the 
 Ministers who dishonored their cloth. The Clergy 
 were often men of poor character, and many instances 
 are recorded of their unworthy lives. Bishop Meade 
 tells of one Rector who, having had a dispute with his 
 Vestry, settled it by a personal encounter in which the 
 
88 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 Minister came off victorious, and the next Sunday he 
 vindicated his conduct in a sermon upon a text taken 
 from Nehemiah : “And I contended with them, and 
 cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked 
 out their hair.” There could be but little life in the 
 Church so administered. Yet it had a hold as a part 
 of the Government to which Virginia remained loyal 
 until the Revolution. 
 
 It is well known that the Parliament party had no 
 countenance in Virginia, and the fugitive Charles the 
 Second was invited to come over and occupy a throne 
 in her borders, from which loyal invitation she got the 
 name of the Old Dominion. Governor Berkeley, who 
 was the royal Governor at that time, lamented the 
 progress of schools and printing, and prayed God that 
 no such curse as a printing press should afflict the 
 Colony. The Church was recognized as a part of the 
 Royalist establishment ; and so, when the Revolution 
 came on, the Ministers for the most part remained 
 loyal to the crown, although their Church-members 
 were the very leaders in the great contest for the 
 rights of the people. When the Revolution was 
 ended, there were not over 600 professing members 
 of the Church, in a population of nearly 800,000, 
 occupying the territory of old Virginia before her dis- 
 memberment, and now comprising the Dioceses of 
 Virginia, Southern Virginia, and West Virginia. The 
 Church then seemed hopelessly ruined ; and thus it 
 was that not until after Connecticut and Pennsylvania 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 89 
 
 and New York had supplied their Dioceses with 
 Bishops did the Churchmen in Virginia rouse them- 
 selves to secure one for the Old Dominion. 
 
 Even after Bishop Madison had been consecrated, 
 no adequate provision for his support was made ; and 
 having made a visitation of the Churches in the east- 
 ern part of the State, and confirmed several hundred 
 persons, he retired to Williamsburg, and gave his time 
 chiefly to his duties as a professor in William and Mary 
 College. Not only did the Church languish from the 
 political reasons antedating the Revolution, but it was 
 afterwards regarded as an aristocratic organization ; 
 the common people felt no interest in it, and were but 
 little encouraged to feel any. In the old Colonial 
 Church of the Parish in which I was born and brought 
 up, I do not remember, as a child, ever to have seen 
 among the congregation any person who was not in 
 the circle of society from which guests to a dinner 
 company would be chosen. The pews were like small 
 rooms, with seats on three sides ; and the children 
 could scarcely see the Minister until, after the reading 
 of the Service, he went into the high pulpit, always 
 dressed in the black gown. 
 
 Within ten years, at a Diocesan Council of Virginia, 
 when the subject of the division of the Diocese was 
 under discussion, a venerable member, a most worthy 
 Christian gentleman of the old school, said on the 
 floor : “ Mr. President, in this debate upon the pro- 
 posed division of the Diocese, the argument has been 
 
9 o 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 used that a division would make the Church grow. 
 Sir, that is the very reason I am opposed to it. The 
 Church is growing too fast now. We are getting in 
 all sorts of people. We have all the Episcopalians 
 now, sir, and what more does anybody want ? ” 
 
 Despite this appeal, the Diocese was divided, and 
 the Church continues to grow. It is gathering into 
 her fold all sorts and conditions of men, and we who 
 are past middle life now see a wonderful change, and 
 the aversion to the Church because of its Colonial and 
 ante- Revolutionary record has given place to a proper 
 admiration for her services, veneration for her antiquity 
 and faith in her teachings. 
 
 The restoration of the Church was more due, under 
 the providence of God, to that apostolic and inflexible 
 Evangelist, William Meade, third Bishop of Virginia, 
 than to any other one man. But the greatest, most 
 lasting and farthest reaching of all the influences, next 
 after the Gospel itself, which tended to re-establish 
 the Church in Virginia, was the Theological Seminary 
 at Alexandria. From this source has flowed for over 
 sixty years a pure stream of Evangelical truth. It has 
 a claim upon the affectionate interest of every Massa- 
 chusetts Churchman because it was there that his 
 theological education was received by that majestic 
 man, Phillips Brooks. 
 
 The growth of the Church in Virginia is shown by 
 the fact that in the same territory where, in a popula- 
 tion of 800,000, there were in 1 7 90 only 600 commu- 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 9i 
 
 nicants, there are now 25,000, in a population of 
 2,500,000: that is, the population has increased three- 
 fold, the Churchmen have increased forty-fold. 
 
 Mr. President, in an old book which I have, printed 
 in 1657, called “A Mirror or Looking Glass for both 
 Saints and Sinners, whereunto is added a geographical 
 description of all the countries in the known world,” 
 the boundaries of Virginia are thus given : “ Virginia 
 is bounded on the North by New France, on the South 
 by New Spain, on the East by the Atlantic Ocean, and 
 its Western boundaries are unknown.” 
 
 Those boundaries now, sir, no longer apply. By 
 royal grant, by her own generosity, and by the decree 
 of the sword, the territory of Virginia has been enor- 
 mously reduced. But as the State has contracted, 
 the Church has expanded. The Church, no longer 
 cramped on the North by Puritanical severities and 
 proscriptions, nor prejudiced in the South by royal 
 establishments and aristocratic isolation ; but with the 
 Sun of righteousness, of truth and of liberty, rising 
 upon her with healing in His wings, the boundaries 
 of the influence of the Church, not in the West alone 
 but in every quarter, are without limits and are 
 unknown. 
 
 MR. SAUNDERS. 
 
 The last Diocese to be represented here by a 
 speaker to-day is that of Maryland, whose first 
 Bishop (Claggett) joined in the Consecration of 
 
92 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 Bishop Bass. Its representative is one whose father’s 
 family is well known in New England, and who on 
 his mother’s side is a descendant from Charles Lee, 
 Attorney General in the Cabinet of General Wash- 
 ington during his second term. His uncle, Prof. 
 Alpheus Packard, of Bowdoin College, was said at 
 the time of his death, to know personally every living 
 graduate of the College. I think it probably may 
 be said to-day of his father, Prof. Joseph Packard, 
 of the Theological School at Alexandria, that he per- 
 sonally knows every living graduate of that School. 
 If you will pardon me a personal word, his uncle, 
 George Packard, was the Rector of my boyhood, a man 
 well known to many of the older members of our 
 Church present. For thirty years a Priest in this Dio- 
 cese, he was during that time the first Rector of Grace 
 Church, Lawrence, my own Parish. A physician be- 
 fore he took Holy Orders, he was often able during 
 his pastorate to advise in the care of the bodies as 
 well as the souls of the poorer members of his Con- 
 gregation. He died full of years, with the love and 
 respect of all who knew him. 
 
 His nephew is our guest to-day, a lawyer by pro- 
 fession, prominent in public life, President of the 
 Reform Club of Baltimore, a leader in the Diocese, 
 and long a member of the General Convention. I 
 now introduce to you Joseph Packard, Esq., of 
 Baltimore. 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 93 
 
 MR. JOSEPH PACKARD. 
 
 I am in no sense an official representative of Mary- 
 land ; but as one who loves and has pride in Maryland, 
 and respects and honors Massachusetts, I may well, on 
 behalf of many like-minded with myself, bring cordial 
 greetings to the Diocese of Massachusetts on this day 
 which rounds out her first century under a Bishop. I 
 come from one, as my friend Mr. Bryan does from the 
 other, of the two old Dioceses where ours was the 
 Established Church. More than two centuries ago an 
 Act was passed by the Colony of Maryland, entitled 
 “An Act for the Worship of Almighty God and the 
 Establishment of the Protestant Religion in this Prov- 
 ince.” Under this and subsequent Acts, up to the 
 time of the Revolution, our Clergy were paid and our 
 churches were built by taxes levied by the State, sup- 
 plemented by private beneficence. It is true that the 
 currency in which these taxes were paid was not wholly 
 satisfactory. All the Colonies, like other communities 
 where finance is little understood, experimented with 
 the currency, and the most that can be said for Mary- 
 land is that her currency, tobacco, was better than the 
 wampum of New England because of its intrinsic value. 
 Still this value varied much, not only from the vicissi- 
 tudes of the seasons and the fluctuations of trade, but 
 also from the varieties of the crop. A Colonial Clergy- 
 man felt that the lines had fallen to him in pleasant 
 places when he was in charge of “ a sweet scented 
 
94 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 Parish,” — so called not from the odor of sanctity that 
 there abounded, but because the Parish produced the 
 “sweet scented” tobacco, as distinguished from the 
 coarser and less valuable variety known as the 
 “ Orinoco.” 
 
 The characteristics of this Colonial Church in Mary- 
 land were such as might have been expected from its 
 environment, &nd being such, they have in large meas- 
 ure prevailed up to the present day. 
 
 Toleration must be placed first among its character- 
 istics. Founded as a Roman Catholic Colony, the set- 
 tlers of other religious beliefs had always, for whatever 
 reasons — and I shall not stop to discuss these — the 
 largest liberty. The famous Toleration Act of 1649, 
 passed when the Long Parliament was in control in 
 England, held that “ the enforcement of the conscience 
 has always been of dangerous consequence,” and pro- 
 ceeded to enact that “ no persons professing to believe 
 in Jesus Christ should be molested in respect of their 
 religion or in the free exercise thereof.” The clause 
 which provides for “ those reproaching any with oppro- 
 brious names of religious distinction,” in its enumera- 
 tion of nearly a score of such vituperative epithets — 
 including Puritan, Idolater, Jesuit, Lutheran, Anabaptist 
 and Calvinist — indicates alike the breadth of the tol- 
 eration and the influences which brought the Act into 
 being. 
 
 Early in the history of the Colony the Protestant 
 settlers had come to largely outnumber the Roman 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 95 
 
 Catholics, and after the Protestant Revolution the 
 establishment of the Church of England soon followed. 
 But, with the exception of a few instances which are 
 to be deplored, toleration was always exercised ; and 
 certainly the spirit of toleration has continued to be 
 part of the atmosphere of Maryland. Later on, the 
 position of the State on the border between the two 
 great sections of our country induced a similar attitude 
 in regard to other questions ; so that I make bold to 
 say that nowhere in the world is there a place where 
 there is a more “ decent respect to the opinions of 
 mankind” — to use a famous phrase with a new appli- 
 tion — than in the State which bears on her escutcheon 
 the noble motto of the Calverts, “ fatti maschii, parole 
 femine ,” or, as it has been — somewhat benignly — 
 translated, “ courage and courtesy.” 
 
 We have lived for these two centuries and more in 
 kindly relations with our Roman Catholic brethren. 
 That Church has always included some of our best 
 people, and it is only comparatively recently that its 
 native adherents have been outnumbered by those of 
 foreign birth. Living side by side with us all along, 
 that Church has never had for Marylanders the fasci- 
 nating glamour of the unknown and the mysterious. 
 Perhaps it is for this very reason that a striking feature 
 of our Church in Maryland has ever been its staunch 
 Protestantism. 
 
 In those regions and those classes of society 
 where there is little movement, ancient usages of 
 
96 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 speech settle down and remain. So, in the country 
 districts of Southern Maryland, if you are told that 
 a certain building- is a “Protestant” Church, you 
 may know that it is the building which before the 
 Revolution belonged to the Church of England, but, 
 since, has belonged to what Maryland herself first 
 named the Protestant Episcopal Church. This old-time 
 name among the plain people has been truly descrip- 
 tive of the Church throughout its history. There have 
 been scattered instances of people belonging to our 
 Church in Maryland who have failed to appreciate the 
 significance or worth of the great Protestant move- 
 ment, but the great mass of her members, clerical and 
 lay, have been Protestant to the core. 
 
 I have referred to the fact that the organizers of our 
 Diocese of Maryland gave the name which is borne by 
 our Church throughout the land. They took the old 
 familiar name by which it was known among the peo- 
 ple — “the Protestant Church” — and added to it the 
 word Episcopal, in token that they would, at the ear- 
 liest opportunity, return to the Catholic order of super- 
 vision by Bishops, of which for one hundred and 
 seventy-five years these Colonies had been deprived 
 through the neglect of the English Church. They did 
 this, too, at a time when the word Bishop was more 
 than ever discredited in this country, as being the 
 name of a supposed appendage of the civil government 
 from which they had just become emancipated. That 
 they should have at such a time, in such an outspoken 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 97 
 
 manner, declared their principles, deserves remark, not 
 to say commendation. 
 
 This leads me to suggest, as a third characteristic of 
 our Church in Maryland, its strong attachment to the 
 distinctive order and discipline of this Church. 
 
 While our people in Maryland have, I think, ever 
 been brotherly minded toward the “ other Christian 
 Churches,” as they are called in the Maryland Declara- 
 tion of 1783, they have been strongly persuaded that in 
 this Church is to be found “ a more excellent way.” It 
 may be that those of our brethren who left us to form 
 the Reformed Episcopal Church — they were not many 
 in Maryland, and may they soon return — have thought 
 of us as a High Church Diocese ; it may be that those 
 whose ideas of Catholic order and usage are bounded 
 by the narrowest view of Catholicity, now think of us 
 as a Low Church Diocese : — Maryland has been the 
 same all along. 
 
 But I should ill express the Maryland idea if, on 
 such an occasion as this, I failed to recognize the worth 
 of Massachusetts. I shall not attempt her eulogy ; 
 her own sons can best perform this pious office. It 
 has been supposed in the other States that they are 
 always equal to the task. I say this without a touch of 
 sarcasm, for I hold that those who are closest in 
 acquaintance and affection are best fitted to describe 
 the object of their veneration. Let us have the picture 
 glowing with life, and we can make allowance for par- 
 tiality. Yet we outsiders can at least express in some 
 
98 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon of 
 
 measure our appreciation of the sturdiness of the Mas- 
 sachusetts type of character, and of the debt which 
 religion in this country owes to her worthies, even 
 though they happened to belong to the Established 
 Church of Massachusetts, instead of to the Church of 
 England as by law established. 
 
 If the Maryland Churchman who wrote “ The Star- 
 spangled Banner ” has contributed to our Hymnal one 
 of its most beloved hymns, we cannot forget that an- 
 other, equally precious, came from Ray Palmer, and 
 two of our best Christmas hymns from Edmund H. 
 Sears, representatives respectively of the Yale and 
 Harvard schools of theology. Nor can we forget that 
 from that State Church of Massachusetts have come to 
 our own communion some of the strongest and most 
 useful of our Clergy and Laity. These men, to whom 
 our Church owes so much, drew their stout fibre from 
 the hard but vigorous soil of the old Puritan hierarchy. 
 
 The relations between the Colonial Church of Mary- 
 land and the struggling Episcopal Churches in Massa- 
 chusetts were probably more of sympathy than of 
 anything palpable. The conditions of Colonial life 
 made the distance between us a wide separation, — as 
 many days then as hours now. But I am sure that the 
 prosperous Church in Maryland must have thought 
 with tenderness of her feeble sister here, living in an 
 environment of positive, if not bitter, antagonism. 
 And when it came to the time of the Revolution, it 
 must have been felt that the Churchmen of Massachu- 
 
The Episcopalian Club. 
 
 99 
 
 setts, in their long contest for a free Church in a free 
 State, had, from the opposition of their adversaries, 
 learned better than others to appreciate and to set 
 forth the spiritual power of the Church as its true title 
 to mastery. 
 
 From those days of cold comfort for the Episcopal 
 Church in Massachusetts how great is the change to 
 the condition of things which we see now ! The genial 
 influences of Griswold thawed the icy crust which stood 
 between our Church and the strong currents of New 
 England life, and made way for the coming torrent of 
 which Brooks was at once a type and a potent cause. 
 It is a matter of congratulation to you, which we of 
 Maryland can offer without a shadow of envy, that the 
 progress of our Church in this Diocese has been of 
 late more rapid than in our own. In 1886 the number 
 of Clergy in the whole of Maryland, including Easton 
 and the District of Columbia, was ten per cent., and 
 the number of communicants about twenty per cent., 
 greater than those in Massachusetts. In the ten years 
 that followed, the situation was reversed by a some- 
 what less per centage, the growth in Maryland having 
 been twenty-five per cent, in Clergy and communicants, 
 while Massachusetts had increased forty per cent, in 
 Clergy and sixty per cent, in communicants. 
 
 The figures are as follows : 
 
 Communi- 
 
 1886. Clergy. cants. 
 Maryland . . 195 27,023 
 
 Mass 178 22,268 
 
 Communi- 
 
 1896. Clergy. cants. 
 
 Maryland . . 246 33,729 
 
 Mass 251 35,064 
 
IOO 
 
 Addresses at the Luncheon. 
 
 We are still much before you in the proportion of 
 communicants to population ; but if, in the coming de- 
 cade, you shall equal or surpass us in this particular 
 also, none more than we will rejoice that you have 
 entered into the land that remained to be possessed. 
 
 The Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand 
 times so many more as ye are, and bless you as He 
 hath promised. 
 

 . . V* . ' 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA